IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 3056 of 2007()
1. SHARAFUDHEEN, AGED 29 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :04/10/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
Crl.M.C.No.3056 of 2007
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of October 2007
O R D E R
The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for the
offence punishable under Section 472 read with 34 I.P.C.
Altogether there were three accused persons. Cognizance was
taken. The case was registered. The petitioner was not
available for trial. The trial against accused 1 and 2 proceeded.
They have been found not guilty and acquitted. The case against
the petitioner has been split up and refiled. As the petitioner
was not available, the trial against the petitioner has not started.
He has not appeared before the learned Magistrate so far.
Consequently the coercive processes have been issued against
the petitioner. The petitioner has now come back to India on
9/9/2007. The petitioner, in these circumstances, has come to
this court with two prayers. First of all, it is prayed that the
proceedings against the petitioner may be quashed.
Alternatively it is prayed that there may be a direction for
expeditious disposal of the case against him.
2. First of all, in the light of the decision of the Full
Crl.M.C.No.3056/07 2
Bench in Moosa vs. Sub Inspector of Police [2006(1) KLT 552
(FB)] I find absolutely no reason to invoke the powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C in favour of the petitioner who has been
absconding all along. The extraordinary inherent jurisdiction, I
am satisfied, does not deserve to be invoked in favour of the
petitioner.
3. The petitioner can of course appear before the
learned Magistrate and pray for premature termination of
proceedings by invoking the powers of discharge under Section
239 Cr.P.C. That prayer has got to be considered by the learned
Magistrate. According to the petitioner, he has to leave for his
place of employment in November 2007. He, therefore, wants a
direction to be issued for expeditious disposal of the case.
4. The petitioner must first of all appear before the
learned Magistrate. He must apply for regular bail. His
application for regular bail, needless to say, must be considered
by the learned Magistrate, on merits, in accordance with law and
expeditiously as already been held in Alice George vs.Deputy
Superintendent of Police [2003(1)KLT 339]. Such application
must be disposed of on the date of surrender itself.
Crl.M.C.No.3056/07 3
5. Once the petitioner secures bail, the petitioner can
certainly make a request to the learned Magistrate to
expeditiously consider the petitioner’s claim for premature
termination of proceedings by discharge under Section 239
Cr.P.C. Needless to say, such prayer must also be considered by
the learned Magistrate expeditiously. I find no necessity to issue
any specific directions in favour of the petitioner who has not
chosen to appear before the learned Magistrate so far. If the
petitioner appears and makes an application, needless to say, the
learned Magistrate must consider the prayer for expeditious
disposal.
6. With the above observations, this Criminal
Miscellaneous Case is dismissed.
7. Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel
for the petitioner for production before the learned Magistrate.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
// True Copy// PA to Judge
Crl.M.C.No.3056/07 4
Crl.M.C.No.3056/07 5
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.CNo.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF MAY2007