IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2186 of 2010()
1. JOSE,S/O.OUSEPH,KONIKKAKA HOUSE,
... Petitioner
2. ROY,S/O.JOSE,KONIKKAKA HOUSE,
3. BINOY,S/O.JOSE
4. VARKEY,S/O.OUSEPH,
5. JUSTIN,S/O.VARKEY,
6. MILAN, S/O.VARKEY.
7. POULOTH, S/O.OUSEPH,
8. MARY,W/O.JOSE,
9. ROSEMOL,D/O.JOSE,
10. RAPHI, S/O.POULOTH
Vs
1. K.C.RAPPAI, S/O.DEVASSY,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :18/06/2010
O R D E R
V.RAMKUMAR, J.
-------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 2186 of 2010
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of June, 2010
ORDER
Petitioners, who are the accused in C.C.No.547/2006 on
the file of the J.F.C.M Court-III, Thrissur for offences
punishable under Sections 380 and 109 read with 34 IPC, seek
to quash Annexure A private complaint and all further
proceedings before the Magistrate.
2. The learned Magistrate has already framed charge
and the case is posted for prosecution evidence. When the
trial of the case was already started with the framing of the
charge, the appropriate remedy of the petitioners is to face
the trial and try to secure an order of acquittal. If a question
of identity does not arise, I am inclined to permit the
petitioners to file an application for personal exemption under
Section 205 Cr.P.C during the trial of the case by
incorporating appropriate averments. In case such an
application is filed, the learned Magistrate shall exempt the
petitioners from personal appearance during the trial, unless
their personal appearance is inevitable at any stage of the
trial. Reserving the above right of the petitioner, this Criminal
M.C is dismissed.
V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
dmb