Suresh Babu vs State Of Kerala on 16 March, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 734 of 2007()


1. SURESH BABU, S/O. LAKSHMANAN PILLA,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :16/03/2007

 O R D E R
                            V. RAMKUMAR, J.

                        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                         Crl.M.C.NO.734/2007

                         - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

            Dated this the 16th Day of March, 2007


                                 O R D E R

In this petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., the

petitioner who is the second accused in Crime No.196/1999 of

Thampanoor Police station for an offence punishable under

Section 379 IPC in respect of a vehicle, seeks to quash the

final report.

2. The petitioner has a contention that even though

the FIR was registered on 13.1.1999, final report was filed

only on 21.1.2004, i.e., long after the limitation prescribed

under Section 468 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under

Section 379 IPC and the Magistrate has taken cognisance of

the offence without even condoning the delay and without

hearing the petitioner who had a right to be heard. Yet

another contention raised is that the petitioner was a juvenile

on the date of commission of the offence.

3. The case is now pending before the J.F.C.M-III,

Thiruvananthapuram in C.C.No.141/2004. Consequent on the

non appearance of the petitioner before that Court, non

bailable warrants of arrest are pending against the petitioner.

Since the contentions raised above are worthy of serious

consideration, I am inclined to give the petitioner an

opportunity to raise both the contentions before the

Magistrate. This Crl.M.C. is Accordingly disposed of as

follows:-

If the petitioner surrenders before the

J.F.C.M-III, Thiruvananthapuram and

files an application for regular bail the

same shall be considered and disposed

of preferably on the same date on which

it is filed, after examining the

aforementioned contentions raised by

the petitioner. It shall be open to the

petitioner to produce evidence in

support of his age to buttress his

contention that he was juvenile on the

date of commission of offence.

4. It is needles to say that if the cognisance has been

taken without condoning the delay, the same is of no avail to

the prosecution and the petitioner is entitled to be heard on

the question of delay notwithstanding the fact that the case is

at present in the post-cognisance stage.

V.RAMKUMAR

JUDGE

mrcs