IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.MC.No. 3027 of 2009() 1. SHIBU K.MANI, S/O.MANI (AGED 35), ... Petitioner Vs 1. RENDHU SARA KURIAN, D/O.KURIAN, ... Respondent 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE ZACHARIAH ERUTHICKAL For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR Dated :08/10/2009 O R D E R M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No.3027 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 8th day of October,2009 ORDER
Petitioner is the first accused in C.C.681/2005
on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I,
Changanassery. Prosecution case is that three accused
persons committed an offence under section 498A and
Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. As the
petitioner was absconding, case as against him was
split up and refiled as C.C.148/2008 and the remaining
accused were tried by the learned Magistrate. Though
the learned Magistrate found them guilty and convicted
and sentenced them for the offences under section 498A
and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in
Crl.A.149/2008 filed by those accused, under Annexure B
judgment Additional Sessions Court, Kottayam set aside
the conviction and acquitted them. This petition is
filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure
to quash the proceedings as against the petitioner
contending that in view of the order of acquittal of
the co-accused under Annexure B judgment and the
finding that there is no evidence to prove the
Crl.M.C.3027/2009 2
commission of an offence under section 498A or Section 3
and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, continuation of
proceedings against him is only an unnecessary waste of
valuable time of the court and therefore it is to be
quashed. Petitioner also contended that he has already
obtained an order of divorce from the Family Court and in
such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to
continue the prosecution. Learned counsel also argued that
petitioner is employed in United States of America and it
is in such circumstances, he could not appear when the
other accused were tried and as there is no chance for a
successful prosecution, the case is to be quashed.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
the learned Public Prosecutor were heard.
3. The fact that accused 2 and 3 were acquitted by the
appellate court, in the appeal is not a ground to quash the
proceedings as against the petitioner who is the husband of
the first respondent. The question whether ultimately when
the petitioner is tried, there would be evidence to convict
the petitioner cannot be decided at this stage and based on
the order of acquittal the case as against the petitioner
cannot be quashed. Petitioner is entitled to raise all the
contentions before the learned Magistrate and with that
liberty petition is dismissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Crl.M.C.3027/2009 3 tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006