IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2009 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1742 of 2009() ------------------------- CC.343/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, NORTH PARAVUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.3: ------------------------------------------------- DEVADAS, S/O. KUMARAN, KONAMPARAMBIL, PUTHENVELIKARA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. MR.N.RATHEESH, SMT.SUMA RATHEESH. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUTHENVELIKKARA POLICE STATION. 3. SREELEKHA, AGED 30, S/O. SUKUMARAN, CHALNIKATHIL VEETTIL, THEVARVATTOM KARA, THAIKKATTUSSERY, ALAPPUZHA. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.1742 OF 200 ------------------------------------------ Dated 1st June 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is third accused in C.C.343/2009 on the file of Judicial first Class Magistrate, North Paravur. According to the petitioner trial in the case against all the accused were completed and when the case was posted for questioning under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, as petitioner was working abroad he could not appear and consequently the case as against him was split up and re-filed and other accused were tried in C.C.102/2003 and were acquitted. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the charge filed by Sub Inspector of police in Crime 36/2002, pending against petitioner as C.C.343/2009. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Learned counsel submitted that what remains in the case is only questioning the accused and hearing the prosecution and defence and petitioner is CRMC 1742/09 2 prepared to surrender and in such circumstances necessary direction be issued to the Magistrate. 4. Fact that co-accused were tried in C.C.102/2003 and were acquitted, on the evidence recorded though is not a valid ground by itself to quash the proceedings as sought for in the petition. Question whether there is accepted evidence against the petitioner is to be decided by the learned Magistrate on the evidence. Therefore, prayer for quashing the charge can only be rejected. 5. When absconding accused appears before the Magistrate and moves an application for bail, Magistrate is expected to pass orders in the application without delay. I find no reason to believe that the learned Magistrate will not act in accordance with law. In such circumstance, I find it not necessary to give any direction as sought for. If the petitioner appears and make himself available for trial, Magistrate to dispose the case expeditiously. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.