IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2008 / 10TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2465 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.68/2000 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KUNNAMANGALAM .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- K.SUBAIR, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, POYILALAMPARAMBA VEEDU, MAVOOR AMSOM AND DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 2465 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of July, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for the offences punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. He is the 5th accused. All the co-accused have now been acquitted in separate trials held against them. The case against the petitioner has been transferred to the list of long pending cases. Reckoning him as an absconding accused, coercive processes have been issued against him. It is the contention of the petitioner that the co- accused as well as the petitioner have settled their disputes and the victims have no grievance whatsoever. But the victims have not come before this Court. If actually the victims have compounded the offences, the matter can be reported to the learned Magistrate and I find no reason to assume that the composition will not be accepted by the learned Magistrate. The mere fact that the co-accused have been acquitted on the ground Crl.M.C.No. 2465 of 2008 2 that the victims who have compounded the offences did not tender evidence against the co-accused is no reason for the petitioner to claim any benefit or advantage from such acquittal. There is nothing to show that the alleged victims have compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner. The petitioner, in these circumstances, has to face the trial in the light of the dictum in Moosa v. S.I. of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552). 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner apprehends that if he surrenders before the learned Magistrate, his application for bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. Every court must do the same. Sufficient general directions have already been issued by this Court in the decision in Alice George v. Dy.S.P. of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339). No special or specific direction appears to be necessary in the facts and circumstances of this case. 4. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that if the petitioner appears before the learned Crl.M.C.No. 2465 of 2008 3 Magistrate and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. (R. BASANT) Judge tm