The petitioner herein is the third accused in C.C.No.314/2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Sulthan Bathery. Crime in the said case was registered suo moto by the police under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. The petitioner and the other co-accused were found in suspicious circumstances in the room of a lodge at Pulpalli, armed with deadly weapons. On suspicion that they were proceeding for some unlawful or illegal activity by using deadly weapons, they were arrested by the police. After investigation, police submitted final report in court under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. The petitioner now seeks orders quashing the FIR and the final report as against him on the ground that there is absolutely no material to prove his complicity in the alleged crime.
2. On hearing both sides, I find that the relief as sought by the petitioner cannot be now granted. I find prima Crl.M.C No.4188 of 2014 2 facie materials to show that he joined the company of the other accused with the knowledge of the purpose for which they came there with weapons. May be that he had no active role or active complicity. Here the offence alleged is only under Section 25(1) (a) of the Arms Act. If that alone is the allegation, the trial court will have to consider whether complicity can be alleged against the petitioner, who was only seen in the lodge room along with the others. No other definite offence is seen alleged by the police. It will have to explained what exactly was the illegal or unlawful purpose designed by them, and for what purpose they were seen armed with deadly weapons. If simple possession of deadly weapons is the offence alleged against the petitioner, the trial court will have to consider whether the third accused can be dealt with along with the other accused who were actually found possessing deadly weapons. Anyway, these are all matters to be considered by the trial court. The prosecution as such cannot be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is submitted that the trial court has already framed charge in the case. If so, discharge also cannot be now attempted. Anyway, this Court finds the necessity of a direction for expeditious trial and disposal of the case when the grievance of Crl.M.C No.4188 of 2014 3 the petitioner is that delay in trial will cause loss of employment. His case is that he is already in the list of Reserve Conductors prepared by the Kerala Public Service Commission. Of course, if charge is not actually framed by the trial court, the petitioner can move the trial court for discharge, and the request will have to be judiciously considered by the trial court. Anyway, let the trial be expedited. The grievance of the petitioner that he will lose employment, will have to be considered seriously by the trial court.
In the result, Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed. However the court below is directed that earnest efforts shall be made to expedite trial and disposal of C.C.No.314/2014 in view of a genuine grievance projected by the petitioner.
P.UBAID JUDGE ab