Rengan vs State on 6 June, 2008

Kerala High Court
Rengan vs State on 6 June, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 2144 of 2008()


1. RENGAN, S/O.KRISHNAN KUTTY ACHARY,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. PALANI, S/O.KRISHNAN KUTTY ACHARY,

                        Vs



1. STATE, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.NAGARESH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :06/06/2008

 O R D E R
                          R. BASANT, J.
            -------------------------------------------------
                  Crl.M.C. No. 2144 of 2008
            -------------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 6th day of June, 2008

                               ORDER

The petitioners, along with the co-accused, faced

indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia,

under Secs.326 and 307 read with Sec.149 of the IPC. Some of

the co-accused, who were available, faced trial. They have

been found not guilty and acquitted. The petitioners were not

available for trial. The case against them has been split up.

Reckoning the petitioners as absconding accused, coercive

processes have been issued against the petitioners. The

petitioners apprehend imminent arrest.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners, first of all,

submits that the petitioners are entitled to get the proceedings

against them quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent

powers available to this Court under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C.

Crl.M.C. No. 2144 of 2008 -: 2 :-

3. What is the reason? According to the petitioners, out of

the five injured persons, three have been examined in the trial

against the co-accused and all the three have not supported the

prosecution case. According to them, they are not able to

identify the accused. In these circumstances, the learned

counsel contends that continuance of the prosecution against the

petitioners is unlikely to produce any useful result and would

entail endless waste of time, energy and resources. In these

circumstances, the petitioners are entitled to premature

termination of the proceedings against them, submits the

learned counsel for the petitioners.

4. I am unable to agree. The decision in Moosa v. Sub

Inspector of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552) is authority for the

proposition that the absconding co-accused is not entitled to

claim premature termination of the proceedings on the basis of

the materials adduced in evidence in the trial against the co-

accused. More so, in this case where two of the injured persons

have admittedly not been examined in the trial against the co-

accused. It is not necessary to speculate whether three who were

already examined and whether two who have not been examined

shall support the case of the prosecution in the trial which is to

be held against. The petitioners herein, in these circumstances,

Crl.M.C. No. 2144 of 2008 -: 3 :-

prayed for quashing of the proceedings against them.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

petitioners’ absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. The

proceeding was initiated as early as in 1994, it is seen. The

learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners

are willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek

regular bail. But the petitioners apprehend that their

applications for regular bail may not be considered by the

learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and

expeditiously.

6. It is for the petitioners to appear before the learned

Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the

circumstances under which they could not earlier appear before

the learned Magistrate. I have no reason to assume that the

learned Magistrate would not consider the petitioners’

applications for regular bail on merits, in accordance with law

and expeditiously. No special or specific directions appear to

be necessary. Every court must do the same. Sufficient general

directions on this aspect have already been issued in the decision

reported in Alice George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police

(2003 (1) KLT 339).

7. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed; but with the

Crl.M.C. No. 2144 of 2008 -: 4 :-

observation that if the petitioners surrender before the learned

Magistrate and seek bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to

the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate

must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and

expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself.

Sd/-

(R. BASANT, JUDGE)

Nan/

//true copy//

P.S. to Judge

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *