Marx vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2010

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Marx vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2010

Bench: M.Sasidharan Nambiar

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 557 of 2010()


1. MARX, AGED 42, S/O.OUSEPHUNNI,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. HOJMIN, AGED 40, S/O.OUSEPHUNNI,
3. ELIAS, AGED 45, S/O.CHACKO,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC
                       ...       Respondent

2. LONA, S/O.AVARACHAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR)

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :26/03/2010

 O R D E R
                     M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
                           ---------------------------
                        Crl.M.C. No. 557 OF 2010
                            --------------------------
                  Dated this the 26th day of March, 2010

                                 O R D E R

Petitioners are accused 3 to 5 in C.C. No.543/2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chalakkudy. As they were absconding, the case as against them was split up and refiled as C.C. No.1318/2008. Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 6 were tried. By Annexure-A2 judgment, those accused were acquitted. This petition is filed Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the case as against them contending that in view of the order of acquittal against accused Nos. 1, 2 and 6, even if petitioners are to be tried, there is no likelihood of conviction and therefore the case is to be quashed.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

3. Though by Annexure-A2 judgment, accused Nos. 1, 2 and 6 were acquitted, as held by the Full Bench in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police {2006 (1) KLT 552 (FB)} the case against the absconding accused cannot be quashed, exercising the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the judgment in the other case can only be looked Crl.M.C.No.557/2010 2 into to find out who are the parties therein and whether the prosecution ended in conviction or acquittal. In such circumstances, the case cannot be quashed as sought for. Learned counsel then submitted that petitioners may be permitted to appear before the learned Magistrate and seek an order of discharge and a direction be issued to him to release them on bail.

4. When an absconding accused against whom a non- bailable warrant is pending, surrenders and files an application for bail, Magistrate is expected to pass orders in the application without delay. I find no reason to believe that the learned Magistrate is unaware of the provisions of law or the decisions of this Court or the Apex Court or that the Magistrate will not act in accordance with law. Hence no direction is warranted. Petitioners are at liberty to surrender and seek an order of discharge under Section 245 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Petition is disposed.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR (JUDGE) vps Crl.M.C.No.557/2010 3 Crl.M.C.No.557/2010 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court