IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2008 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2144 of 2008() ------------------------- CP.2/1994 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KARUNAGAPPALLY CRIME NO.178/91 OF KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER: ------------ 1. RENGAN, S/O.KRISHNAN KUTTY ACHARY, PLAVILA THAKKATHIL, THEKKUM MURI KIZHAKKU, THAZHAVA VILLAGE. 2. PALANI, S/O.KRISHNAN KUTTY ACHARY, PLAVILA THAKKATHIL, THEKKUM MURI KIZHAKKU, THAZHAVA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH SRI.T.V.VINU RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY P.P. SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 2144 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of June, 2008 ORDER The petitioners, along with the co-accused, faced indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Secs.326 and 307 read with Sec.149 of the IPC. Some of the co-accused, who were available, faced trial. They have been found not guilty and acquitted. The petitioners were not available for trial. The case against them has been split up. Reckoning the petitioners as absconding accused, coercive processes have been issued against the petitioners. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners, first of all, submits that the petitioners are entitled to get the proceedings against them quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent powers available to this Court under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. Crl.M.C. No. 2144 of 2008 -: 2 :- 3. What is the reason? According to the petitioners, out of the five injured persons, three have been examined in the trial against the co-accused and all the three have not supported the prosecution case. According to them, they are not able to identify the accused. In these circumstances, the learned counsel contends that continuance of the prosecution against the petitioners is unlikely to produce any useful result and would entail endless waste of time, energy and resources. In these circumstances, the petitioners are entitled to premature termination of the proceedings against them, submits the learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. I am unable to agree. The decision in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552) is authority for the proposition that the absconding co-accused is not entitled to claim premature termination of the proceedings on the basis of the materials adduced in evidence in the trial against the co- accused. More so, in this case where two of the injured persons have admittedly not been examined in the trial against the co- accused. It is not necessary to speculate whether three who were already examined and whether two who have not been examined shall support the case of the prosecution in the trial which is to be held against. The petitioners herein, in these circumstances, Crl.M.C. No. 2144 of 2008 -: 3 :- prayed for quashing of the proceedings against them. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners' absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. The proceeding was initiated as early as in 1994, it is seen. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. But the petitioners apprehend that their applications for regular bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. 6. It is for the petitioners to appear before the learned Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the circumstances under which they could not earlier appear before the learned Magistrate. I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider the petitioners' applications for regular bail on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. No special or specific directions appear to be necessary. Every court must do the same. Sufficient general directions on this aspect have already been issued in the decision reported in Alice George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339). 7. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed; but with the Crl.M.C. No. 2144 of 2008 -: 4 :- observation that if the petitioners surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge