IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2011 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 790 of 2011() ------------------------ AGAINST CP.84/2010 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, CHALAKUDY IN CRIME NO.223/04 OF KORATTY POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER / 20TH ACCUSED ------------------------------------------- HABEEB, S/O.MUHAMMED KUTTY, NALAKATHU HOUSE, MAHADEVA APARTMENTS, CIVIL LINE ROAD, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SABU RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------- THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KORATTY POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.SABU SREEDHARAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: dmb THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Crl.M.C. No.790 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 29th day of March 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is accused No.20 in Crime No.223 of 2004 of Koratty Police Station and C.P.No.84 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chalakudy for offences punishable under Sec.395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”). Petitioner states that he is not involved in the alleged incident and on the strength of Annexure-A3 judgment in S.C.No.391 of 2007 pleads to quash proceeding against him. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner was not even aware of proceeding against him and that in the light of Annexure-A3 judgment, it is unnecessary to conduct trial of petitioner. It is also contended that there is no overt act attributed to the petitioner. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. Crl.M.C. No.790 of 2011 -: 2 :- 2. As per Annexure-A1 final report, the case is that the accused including petitioner who learned from the first accused that CW1 and others are bringing foreign currency belonging to CW17 in a car to Ernakulam, blocked that car some of them carrying sword, iron rods and iron pipes on 15.6.2004 at about 12AM, caused hurt to CW1 and others and committed dacoity of gold, foreign currency etc. It is further alleged that the said articles were sold by accused 6, 12, 18, 19 and 20 (the last one being the petitioner) to other persons. Annexure-A3 judgment in S.C.No.391 of 2007 shows that some of the accused faced trial and of them, accused 5, 6, 7, 11,13 and 18 were acquitted of all the charges while accused 1, 3, 9 and 10 were acquitted of the charge under Sec.395 of the IPC. Accused 1, 3, 9, 10, 14 and 15 were convicted for the offence punishable under Sec.412 of the IPC. Petitioner is also alleged to have sold the articles which are subject matter of the dacoity to other persons. It is not as if Annexure-A3 judgment destroyed the Crl.M.C. No.790 of 2011 -: 3 :- substratum of the prosecution case. So that taking note of that, this Court is justified in quashing the proceeding. That some of the accused are acquitted of all charges and some are acquitted of the charge under Sec.395 of the IPC does not justify quashing proceeding against petitioner who face charge under Sec.412 of the IPC also, for which some of the accused are already convicted. Petitioner has to face trial. This Crl.M.C. is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. Jvt