High Court Kerala High Court

Rajan vs Sub Inspector Of Police on 15 November, 2010

Kerala High Court
Rajan vs Sub Inspector Of Police on 15 November, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 4186 of 2010()


1. RAJAN, S/O.KANNAN, MELPARAMBA,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE REP; BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

3. CHANDRASEKHARAN, S/O.GANAPATHI ACHARI,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :15/11/2010

 O R D E R
          M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

           ---------------------------------------------
           CRL.M.C.NO.4186 OF 2010
           ---------------------------------------------
           Dated 15th November, 2010


                          O R D E R

Petitioner was the fifth accused in

C.C.191/1998 on the file of Chief Judicial

Magistrate’s Court, Kasaragod. As he was

absconding, the case against him was split

up and re-filed as C.C.24/2001. The other

seven accused were tried and by Annexure-I

judgment, they were acquitted. On

appearance of the petitioner, the case was

renumbered as C.C.663/2010. Petition is

filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal

Procedure to quash the proceedings

contending that in view of the order of

acquittal against the co-accused,

continuation of the proceedings against the

petitioner is only an abuse of process of

Crmc 4186/10
2

the Court, as there is no likelihood of a

successful prosecution.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were

heard.

3. As held by the Full Bench of this

Court in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006

(1) KLT 552) an absconding accused is not

entitled to get the case against him quashed,

based on the judgment acquitting the

co-accused. Though Annexure-I judgment shows

that out of the eight accused, seven were

acquitted, in view of the Full Bench decision

the case cannot be quashed. Petitioner is at

liberty to raise all the contentions raised

herein before the learned Magistrate including

the contention that in view of the acquittal of

the other members of the unlawful assembly,

Crmc 4186/10
3

case against the petitioner will not lie and

seek an order of discharge under Section 239 of

Code of Criminal Procedure.

Petition is disposed.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.

uj.