IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 786 of 2009() ------------------------ CC.187/2004 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-IV, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.4 --------------------------- M. PAVITHRAN, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. CHATHU, AYADAVAN VEETIL MEETHAL, KEEZHAL.P.O, VADAKARA - 673 104. BY ADVS. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SMT.C.G.PREETHA RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBILC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- CRL.M.C.No. 786 OF 2009 --------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. 187/2004 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV, Kozhikode. The grounds for quashing is that some other accused had undergone trial in the case and the evidence was found to be insufficient and it all ended in acquittal. So there is no fruitful purpose served by directing the petitioner to face the trial. It has to be remembered that the offence is of the year 1997 and the present petitioner has evaded presence before the court and there was even attachment of the immovable property etc. Whether the disposal of a case involving some other accused shall be a ground for quashing the charge against the present person has been considered by a Full Bench of this court reported in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police [2006(1) KLT 552]. This court had given the guidelines and held that a judgment not interparties cannot justify invocation of the doctrine of issue estoppel. It was further held Crl.M.C. 786/2009 -2- that judgment of acquittal of a co accused cannot be a bar against subsequent trial of absconding co accused. It is further held that acquittal of accused after trial will not entitle the co- accused for an acquittal invoking inherent powers. The permissions sought for in the petition is on those grounds which had been considered and repelled by the decision referred to above. It is fundamental that when an accused is absconding and the others are tried no evidence will be let in with respect to involvement of the person who is not before the court. Therefore evading the presence before the court and later coming forward to quash the charge sheet cannot be entertained. I do not find any merit in the petition. Therefore the Crl.M.C. is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm