IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 1413 of 2009()
1. P.A. HANSALAH MOHAMMED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :28/04/2009
O R D E R
S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No.1413 of 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated: 28th April, 2009
ORDER
Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. Petitioner is the 8th accused in C.C.No.389/06 on the file
of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-VI, Kozhikode. He was
prosecuted for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 188 and 283
read with 149 I.P.C. and Section 38 read with Section 52 of the
K.P.Act, on a report filed by the S.I. of Police, Nadakkavu. Trial
against some of the coaccused in the above case ended in their
acquittal by Annexure A judgment and the case against the petitioner
was split up since he was not available for trial earlier. The
prosecution allegations are unworthy of any merit and the offence
under Section 188 I.P.C. imputed will not lie in the present case, as
the case had not been registered on a complaint given by the public
servant, is the case of the petitioner for quashing the criminal
proceedings pending against him before the Magistrate Court.
2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the
learned Public Prosecutor.
3. The trial against the other accused ended in an acquittal and
the judgment passed by the court (Annexure A) indicated that the
Crl.M.C.1413/09 – 2 –
prosecution case is unsustainable is the basis for the petitioner’s
claim to quash the proceedings against him arising out of the split up
case on his default to appear for trial earlier. After perusing Annexure
A judgment, I am not persuaded to quash the proceedings against
the petitioner who is proceeded under the split up case. Some of the
coaccused after trial had been acquitted is no ground for the
remaining accused to seek their acquittal also without facing trial.
Inherent power of this court cannot be exercised for quashing a
criminal proceeding wherein the allegations prima facie disclose the
culpability of the persons proceeded in the offences imputed. Whether
the petitioner deserves acquittal is a matter to be adjudged by the
court on the basis of the evidence to be let in in the split lup case
proceeded against him and not on the basis of the previous acquittal
rendered in favour of the coaccused. The split up case proceeded
against the petitioner after trial should reach its logical conclusion.
Petitioner submits that a warrant issued by the Magistrate is pending
execution and a direction be issued to the Magistrate to consider his
bail application on the date of his surrender itself. Considering the
request made, the learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the bail
application, if any, moved by the petitioner preferably on the date of
Crl.M.C.1413/09 – 3 –
his surrender, provided he surrenders before that court within ten
days from the date of this order.
Petition is dismissed, subject to the direction as above.
srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE