IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3154 of 2008()
1. IRUMBAN HANEEFA, AGED 30 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.SASINDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :19/08/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 3154 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 19th day of August, 2008
O R D E R
The petitioner faces indictment as the second accused in a
prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 307
r/w. 149 I.P.C. Altogether there were ten accused persons. All
the other accused faced trial. They were found not guilty and
acquitted. The petitioner was not available for trial. The case
against him has been split up and refiled. The petitioner has not
entered appearance so far. He was employed abroad. Coercive
processes have been issued against the petitioner. He finds such
processes chasing him.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is absolutely innocent. It is prayed that in as much as
all the co-accused have been found not guilty and acquitted, the
petitioner may also now be saved of the undeserved trauma of
continuance of this prosecution against him. Powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked and the proceedings against
the petitioner may be quashed, it is prayed.
Crl.M.C.No. 3154 of 2008
2
3. After the decision in Moosa v. S.I. of Police (2006 (1) KLT
552) rendered by a Full Bench, it is trite that an absconding accused
cannot claim any benefit or advantage from the acquittal of the co-
accused, who faced trial. I have gone through the judgment in the trial
against the co-accused. The evidence of the witnesses in that case have
been placed before me. I am unable to agree that notwithstanding the
dictum in Moosa (supra) the petitioner is entitled for premature
termination of proceedings against him by invoking the extra ordinary
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
4. In the trial against the co-accused, there was no occasion
whatsoever for the prosecution to tender evidence, which shows the
culpability of the petitioner herein. No evidence was necessary to be
adduced in such prosecution when the petitioner did not face
indictment. The petitioner has been named in the F.I.R. and admittedly
there is no settlement of the disputes between the victim and the
petitioner herein. It would be idle for this Court to speculate whether
any evidence is possible to be adduced against the petitioner when he
Crl.M.C.No. 3154 of 2008
3
faces trial. I am satisfied in these circumstances that following the
dictum in Moosa (supra) the petitioner is not entitled for premature
termination of the prosecution against him by the invocation of the
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there may
be a direction to the learned Magistrate to dispose of the application
for bail to be filed by the petitioner on merits, in accordance with law
and expeditiously. No special or specific direction appears to be
necessary. Every court must do the same. Sufficient general directions
have already been issued by this Court in the decision in Alice George
v. Dy.S.P. of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339).
6. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however
hasten to observe that if the petitioner appears before the learned
Magistrate and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice
to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must
proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and
expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself.
Crl.M.C.No. 3154 of 2008
4
7. The petitioner wants to seek expeditious disposal of the
prosecution against him as he has to return to his place of employment.
He can move the learned Magistrate and seek appropriate relief.
8. Hand over the order.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm