IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2009 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1091 of 2009() ------------------------- CP.91/2008 (L.P.R. 115/04) of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KODUNGALLUR CRIME NO. 516/2001 OF MATHILAKAM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER(S): IST ACCUSED -------------------------- NIDHEESH, S/O.PAVITHRAN, KARAPPILLY HOUSE, P.O.KAIPAMANGALAM, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MATHILAKAM POLICE STATION, MATHILAKAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. VINOD, S/O.JAYARAJAN, HOUSE NO.5/478, PARAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, KAIPPAMANGALAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. BABU, S/O.VENUGOPALAN, 5/166, PANATTU HOUSE, KAIPPAMANGALAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. SUMESH.K.D., S/O.DHARMARAJAN, KALAPPURAKKAL HOUSE, KAIPPAMANGALAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI ADV. SRI.RAFEEK. V.K. FOR R2 TO R5 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- CRL.M.C.No. 1091 OF 2009 --------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2009 O R D E R This petition is filed with a prayer to quash all further proceedings in C.P. 91/2008 (L.P.R 115/2004) on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungallur in Crime No. 516/2001 of the Mathilakam Police Station. The accusation against the accused is under Sections 141, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326, 307 r/w. 149 IPC. The two grounds raised for quashing the case is that the matter has been compounded and the second is that the other accused in connected cases had been acquitted. So far as the first argument is concerned, the decision reported in Manoj Sharma v. State [2008 (4) KLT 417] one of the Hon'ble Judges had expressed his view in para 23 of the judgment to the effect that: “There can be no doubt that a case under S. 302 IPC or other serious offences like those under Ss. 395, 307 or 304 B cannot be compounded and hence proceedings in those provisions cannot be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its power under S. 482 Crl.P.C.” Crl.M.C. 1091/2009 -2- The learned Judge also expressed desirability of lying guidelines for the purpose of considering the materials which can be quashed and one judge finally observed that “After all, a crime is an offence against society, and not merely against a private individual”. So this is a case where the offence includes Sections 307 and 326. Therefore I am not inclined to quash the proceedings on that ground. The second ground alleged is that the co-accused have been acquitted in the other trial and therefore nothing remained. This was also considered by a Full Bench of this court reported in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police [2006 (1) KLT 522]. This court had clearly laid down that the acquittal of some of the accused by itself is not a reason to bar the trial in the case of the other accused. Such judgments will be admissible only to show as to who were the parties in the earlier proceedings or the factum of acquittal. This court also further observed that the absconding accused is apprehended and tried later the court has necessarily to consider the legally available evidence and cannot adopt the easy course of acquittal on the premise that the co-accused was acquitted. So on the Crl.M.C. 1091/2009 -3- basis of this decision also the complaint cannot be quashed. Now what remains is what directions can be given. It is submitted that the accused is employed abroad and the matter has been settled between the parties and if this case is not disposed of within a time frame he may have to forgo his job which will affect his life. Therefore if everything is ready and if the petitioner co- operates, I direct the concerned Magistrate to commit the case to the court of Sessions as expeditiously as possible and when the sessions case is received and numbered let it be made over to a Fast Track court which has no vacation so that the matter can be given preference and disposed of. With these directions the Crl.M.C is disposed of. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE vkm