IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2010 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4681 of 2010() ----------------------------------- SC.392/2004 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVALLA CP. NO.96/2003 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVALLA. .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.1 --------------------------- RAVI @ VINOD, S/O.KUTTAPPAN, THIKKAPPUZHA, THAZYCHOYIL VEEDU, PARUMALA MURI, KADAPRA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PULIKKEEZHU THROUGH, THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, AT ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SABU SREEDHARAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4681 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner was the first accused in S.C.No. 392/2004 on the file of Assistant Sessions Court, Thiruvalla. As he was absconding, case against him was split up and the remaining six accused were tried. By Annexure-A5 judgment, those accused were acquitted. Case against the petitioner is now pending as L.P.No. 26/2010. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that in the light of the evidence recorded and the order of acquittal of the co-accused in S.C.No. 392/2004, no purpose will be served by directing the petitioner to undergo the ordeal of a trial, when there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution and it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. As held by the Full Bench of this Court in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552), CRMC 4681/10 2 based on the judgment acquitting the co-accused, an absconding accused is not entitled to get the case against him quashed. Petitioner has no case that he has settled the disputes with the injured. On the other hand, the proceedings pending against him is sought to be quashed only on the ground that the co-accused were acquitted. In such circumstances, the case cannot be quashed as sought for. 4. Learned counsel then submitted that petitioner may be granted opportunity to seek an order of discharge. Petitioner is at liberty to raise all the contentions raised herein and seek an order of discharge under Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Petition is disposed. 21st December, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv