IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2010 / 8TH SRAVANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 2890 of 2010() ------------------------- CC.327/2010 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. P.M.SURENDRAN,S/O.DAMODHARAN, 'PONTHODY MANNAKATH HOUSE',NILAMBUR.P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. T.PRAKASAN,S/O.KANARAN,PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 'THAPPALLI HOUSE,NALLAMTHANNI.P.O, KARULAI,NILAMBUR.P.O,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. T.VINODKUMAR,S/O.KANARAN,"AISWARYA", KADACHIRA.P.O,KANNUR. 4. KANDOTH PRABHAVATHI, W/O.P.M.SURENDRAN,'PONTHODY MANNAKATH HOUSE', NILAMBUR.P.O,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJESH KORMATH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SURENDRAN,ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, ERNAD TALUK,MANJERI,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676121. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.KAMMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. --------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2890 of 2010 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of July, 2010 ORDER Petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.133/2008 of Edavanna Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 447 & 427 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and Sec.3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, seek to quash Annexure-I F.I.R., Annexure-II Final Report and further proceedings in C.C.No.327/2010 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri. The decision in Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & others (2008) 12 SCC 531 cited by the learned counsel has absolutely no application to the facts of this case. 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 Crl.M.C.No.2890/2010 : 2 : 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 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. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE skj