IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR SATURDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2009 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1654 of 2008() -------------------------------------- CRIME NO. 305/2004 OF CONTONMENT POLICE STATION ........ PETITIONER(S): 2ND ACCUSED ------------------------ DEVADAS, S/O. SAMUVEL, RESIDING AT TC 12/1443. SYAM SIGON, PMG, VANCHIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. MR.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): STATE ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO. 305 OF 2004 OF CONTONMENT POLICE STATION) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.1654 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated 23rd May 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused in crime No.305/2004 of Contonment police station. Case was registered on the basis of a complaint from defacto petitioner, who is the wife of first accused alleging that both the accused in furtherance of the common intention committed offences under Sections 143, 147, 149, 447, 506(i) of Indian Penal Code along with some others. After investigation final report was filed by Sub Inspector of Police against six accused. This petition is filed by second accused under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash C.C.4/2005 pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thiruvananthapuram taken cognizance based on Annexure-II final report. Case of the petitioner is that he is in no way connected with the alleged incident and he was implicated only because he happened to be a friend of first accused, the husband of defacto complainant and the proceeding is only an CRMC 1654/08 2 abuse of process of court and therefore it is to be quashed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the records, I do not find this a fit case to be quashed exercising the inherent powers of this court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Question whether there is sufficient evidence against petitioner to convict him or not is not to be decided at this stage and that too in a petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. In such circumstances, petition to quash proceedings can only be dismissed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner then submitted that petitioner is working in Gulf and while he came to India the alleged incident occurred and learned Magistrate had issued non bailable warrant against the petitioner and in such circumstances, petitioner cannot seek an order of discharge on the materials produced by the prosecution and in the interest of justice petitioner may be permitted to file a petition to dispense with his personal presence CRMC 1654/08 3 during the time of trial and he may be permitted to represent through the counsel. That is a question to be decided by the learned Magistrate. If sufficient reasons are shown and a petition is filed to dispense with the presence of the petitioner at the time of trial, Magistrate to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.