IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2011 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1154 of 2011() ------------------------------ CC.213/1996 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER(S): 2ND ACCUSED ------------------------------------- SUJATHA VIJAYAKUMAR, W/O.V.VIJAYAKUMAR, "ANUGRAGHA" NEAR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PUTHUPARIYARAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD-678001. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031. 3. K.SUBRAMANYAN, S/O.LATE KUTTIRAMA MOOTHAN, 29/183, TEMPLE STREET, MOOTHANTHARA, PALAKKAD-678001. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2011, ALONG WITH CRMC. NO.1161/2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs. THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.Nos.1154 and 1161 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 06th day of April, 2011 ORDER These cases concern C.C.Nos.213 of 1996 and C.C.No.164 of 2010 to the extent petitioner/accused 2 is involved. Both cases are pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad and are for offences punishable under 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC”). It is prayed in these proceedings that the case against petitioner may be quashed in the light of Annexure-A1, order passed by this Court in Crl.M.C.Nos.1264 and 1265 of 2009. Learned counsel contended that in view of Annexure-I, order it is not necessary to proceed against petitioner. 2. I have gone through Annexure-I, order. In that order it is stated that on the strength of settlement reached between third respondent/de facto complainant and first accused (husband of petitioner), proceeding against the first accused was quashed. Merely for that reason it cannot be said that proceeding against petitioner/accused 2 is to be quashed. That request cannot be allowed. Crl.M.C.Nos.1154 and 1161 of 2011 -: 2 :- 3. Learned counsel submitted that in C.C.No.214 of 1996 petitioner was released on bail but her arrest in C.C.No.213 of 1996 was not recorded and hence she is liable to be arrested in that case. On account of non bailable warrant issued to the petitioner in C.C.No.213 of 1996 that case has been included in the long pending register as L.P.No.257 of 2004. 4. Learned counsel submitted that C.C.No.214 of 1996 is posted on 25.04.2011 for framing charge. Having regard to the circumstances stated I am inclined to give time to the petitioner till then to appear in C.C.No.213 of 1996 and seek regular bail. Resultantly these criminal miscellaneous cases are disposed of in the following lines: (i) Crl.M.C.No.1154 of 2011 is disposed of granting time to the petitioner till 25.04.2011 to appear before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad in C.C.No.213 of 1996 (L.P.No.257 of 2004) and seek regular bail. (a) If any application for bail/recall of warrant is preferred, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate shall consider the said application having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and pass appropriate orders as early as possible bearing in mind that in C.C.No.214 of 1996 Crl.M.C.Nos.1154 and 1161 of 2011 -: 3 :- petitioner has already been granted bail. (b) Warrant of arrest issued to the petitioner in C.C.No.213 of 1996 will stand in abeyance until 25.04.2011 or till petitioner appears before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in that case whichever is earlier. (ii) Crl.M.C.No.1161 of 2010 is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-