IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 31ST AUGUST 2010 / 9TH BHADRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3601 of 2010 ---------------------------------- (C.C. NO.113/2007 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT, N. PARAVUR) ............. PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1: ------------------------------------------ SREEJAN, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. RAJAN, MALIAKKAL HOUSE, PUTHENVELIKARA. BY ADVS. SRI.AMJAD ALI, SRI. MANSOOR.B.H. RESPONDENT/STATE/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTING STATION HOUSE OFFICER PUTHENVELIKARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3601 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner was the first accused in C.C.No. 200/2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, North Parur. As petitioner and accused 2 and 6 were absconding, learned Magistrate split up the case against the petitioner, accused 2 and 6 and refiled it as C.C.No.113/2007. By Annexure-II order, accused 3 to 5 and 7 were acquitted. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the case against the petitioner contending that in view of the order of acquittal of the co-accused, even if petitioner is to be tried, there is no likelihood of a conviction. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Annexure-II judgment shows that accused 3 to 5 and 7 were acquitted as PW1, the defacto CRMC 3601/10 2 complaint, who is the injured, as well as PW2, did not identify the accused, who are facing trial, as the persons involved in the incident. That does not mean that the witnesses will not identify the petitioner as one of the persons involved, if examined. Therefore, based on Annexure-II judgment, the case cannot be quashed as sought for. 4. Learned counsel then submitted that there may be a direction to the learned Magistrate to dispose the case expeditiously. As petitioner is absconding and did not appear before the Magistrate, no such direction could be issued. Petition is dismissed. 31st August, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv