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
