Ramachandran vs State Of Kerala on 3 June, 2009

0
26
Kerala High Court
Ramachandran vs State Of Kerala on 3 June, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 1817 of 2009(A)


1. RAMACHANDRAN, S/O. GOPALAKRISHNA
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.KRISHNADAS P. NAIR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :03/06/2009

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

              ------------------------------------------
               CRL.M.C.NO.1817 OF 2009
              ------------------------------------------

                 Dated        3rd    June 2009


                           O R D E R

Petitioner is the accused in S.C.405/2007 on

the file of Additional Sessions court, Vadakara. This

petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of

Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-B charge sheet

submitted in crime 142/1992 based on which cognizance

was taken and later committed to the sessions court

and pending before Additional sessions court,

Vadakara. Case of the petitioner is that the case as

against other accused were tried by learned Sessions

Judge in S.C.845/2006 and as evidenced by Annexure-C

judgment dated 17/4/2008 the other accused were

already found not guilty and acquitted and in such

circumstances, no purpose will be served by recording

the evidence in this case and so the case is to be

quashed.

2. On hearing the learned counsel, I find

no reason to quash the pending sessions case as

against the petitioner. Fact that other accused were

CRMC 1817/09
2

acquitted in S.C.845/2006, for want of evidence as

against them, is not a ground to quash the proceedings.

Question whether there is evidence as against

petitioner is to be decided in this case, after

recording the evidence. Learned counsel appearing for

petitioner submitted that in the F.I statement name of

the petitioner was not mentioned and therefore, it is

a valid ground to hold that case against petitioner is

not correct. It is not for this court at this stage to

consider whether omission to mention the name of the

petitioner in the First Information Report is fatal to

the petitioner or not. If the case of the petitioner is

that there is no material available in the case records

to frame a charge against him he is at liberty to seek

an order of discharge from the sessions court.

Petition is dismissed.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.

uj.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *