IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2010 / 25TH ASHADHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 2628 of 2010() ------------------------- CC.454/2010 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, N. PARAVUR .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2: --------------- 1. SUDHAKARAN, S/O.ROSHAN AGED 60 YRS, KOYYICKALVEETTIL MADAPLATHURUTH, MOOTHAKUNNAM ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. SUJITH, S/O.SUDHAKARAN, KOYYICKALVEETTIL MADAPLATHURUTH, MOOTHAKUNNAM,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.AMJAD ALI RESPONDENTS:STATE/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT & INJURED: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIHG COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTING STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VADAKKEKARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. VIJAYAN, S/O.NEELAKANDAN, VIPU NIVAS, CHITTATTUKARA, VADAKKEKARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. RENISHKUMAR, S/O.VIJAYAN, VIPU NIVAS, CHITTATTUKARA, VADAKKEKARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. RAMDAS, S/O.GOVINDAN, KOLLAMPARAMBU, CHITTATUKARA, VADAKKEKARA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.KAMMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. --------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2628 of 2010 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July, 2010 ORDER Petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.491 of 2009 of Vadakkekara Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 506(11), 341 & 323 read with Section 34 of I.P.C., seek to quash Annexure-1 and further proceedings in C.C.No.454 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, N.Paravur. 2. It is too early for this Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to meticulously scan the voluminous prosecution records and to hold that the prosecution of the petitioners is groundless and the same is liable to be quashed. The appropriate remedy of the petitioners is to plead for a discharge before the Court below. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to permit the petitioners to plead for a discharge in absentia. Accordingly if the petitioners Crl.M.C.No.2628/2010 : 2 : file an application for discharge before the court below through their counsel, that court shall not insist on the personal appearance of the petitioners for the disposal of the discharge petition. This Crl.M.C is disposed of reserving the above right of the petitioners. Petitioners may also highlight the fact that the matter has been settled between the de facto complainant and the petitioners. Dated this the 16th day of July, 2010. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE skj