IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2008 / 4TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 248 of 2008() ------------------------ CC.75/2002 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED 2,3 & 4 --------------------------- 1. O.HAREESH, S/O GOPALAN NAIR(LATE), OTHAYOTH HOUSE, P.O.THALAKULATHUR, KOZHIKODE. 2. ROOPESH, S/O MURALEEDHARAN, OTHAYOTH HOUSE, P.O.THALAKULATHUR, KOZHIKODE. 3. JYOTHISH, S/O VASUDEVAN NAIR, OTHAYOTH HOUSE, P.O.THALAKULATHUR, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE -------------------------------- 1. S.I OF POLICE, KASABA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.M.C. No. 248 of 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 24-01-2008 ORDER In this petition filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners who are accused Nos. 2,3 and 4 in C.C. No. 75 of 2002 for offences punishable under Sections 408, 419, 420, 468 and 471 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. seek to quash Annexure VI court charge dated 19-11-2007 framed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode. The main grievance of the petitioner is that although going by the prosecution case itself the petitioners had no role to play with regard to the alleged misappropriation of Rs. 30,000/- by the first accused on 8-09-2001 and the alleged misappropriation by the first accused of Rs. 50,000/- on 14-09- 2001 and the only role attributed to the petitioners along with the first accused is for the subsequent acts from 7-10-2001, the learned Magistrate has framed the charge as though the misappropriation on 8-09-2001 and 14-09-2001 was part of the same transaction which followed 7-10-2001. Even the Special Public Prosecutor in-charge of the case wanted the court to split the charge into two for the trial of the first accused separate from the rest of the accused for the alleged misappropriation on 8-9-2001 and 14-09-2001 and for the joint trial of accused Nos. 1 to 4 in respect of the criminal acts which immediately preceded 7-10-2001 and thereafter. But Annexure VI court-charge framed on 19-11-2007 would appear as though the entire occurrence was part of the same transaction. All the four accused persons have been called upon to answer not only with Crl.M.C. No. 248 of 2008 -:2:- regard to the occurrence on 8-9-2001 and 14-09-2001 in which A2 to A4 had no role to play but also with regard to the subsequent occurrence. 2. I am told that the police had filed separate charge sheets one against the first accused for the occurrence dated 8- 9-2001 and 14-09-2001 and separate charge-sheet against A1 to A4 for the subsequent offences. Instead of assigning separate C.C. numbers, the court below assigned one C.C. No. for both the cases as C.C.No. 75 of 2002 which has resulted in a common charge being framed against accused Nos. 1 to 4 with regard to both the transactions which are severable and in respect of which there was no common participation. Accordingly, the court below shall assign separate C.C. numbers for the charge sheet filed against tshe first accused with regard to the alleged misappropriation on 8-9-2001 and 14-09-2001 and a separate C.C. number for the other charge sheet against A1 to A4 with regard to the subsequent transaction. The court charge shall also be framed separately frame separate and the cases shall also be separately tried, separately. This Crl. M.C. is disposed of as above. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) ani. Crl.M.C. No. 248 of 2008 -:3:-