The above Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C), seeking invocation of this Court's inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed with the prayers to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in L.P No.50 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad arising from C.C No.782 of 2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad arising from C.C No.275 of 2002 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad, which arose out of Crime No.34 of 2002 of Vatanappally Police Station, Thrissur district and to direct the Magistrate concerned to recall the non-bailable warrant issued against the petitioner in L.P No.50 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad. 2. The gist of the prosecution allegation is that the petitioner herein along with 15 others on 15.09.1999 at 9:45 p.m have formed themselves into an unlawful assembly at Vatanappilly junction, Thrissur district and parked buses bearing No.KL 8C.9558 and KL 8D 152 in the public road so as to cause obstruction to the other vehicles at about 11 a.m on 23.01.2002 and quarreled with PW1 (who was engaged in police traffic duty). The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 143, 147, 283, 160 and 353 r/w Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. It is urged by the petitioner that the original Calendar Case C.C No.275 of 2002 was split up and the other 13 accused have been acquitted as per Annexure B judgment rendered on 31.05.2006. The case against the two other accused in the original crime, including the petitioner, was split up and re-filed as C.C No.782 of 2006.
3. Sri.Rajit, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner has a strong case for seeking the prayer of quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings but would reserve that remedy to be invoked subsequently, as the petitioner, who was working abroad, is now coming down to India to appear and surrender before the learned Magistrate and apply for bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without effective orders from this Court issued under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate might remand the petitioner on the ground of his absence. Petitioner would submit that he has been working in gulf and that he was under the wrong impression that the acquittal ordered by the court in Annexure A judgment would also automatically enure to his benefit. Moreover it is submitted that the substratum of the prosecution case has disappeared after the acquittal rendered by the court below as per Annexure B judgment in the case of the other accused in the split up Calendar Case.
4. As regards prayer No.i for quashment of the criminal proceedings, it is ordered that no orders are necessary in this Crl.M.C as the petitioner is not now pressing that prayer, with liberty to agitate that issue subsequently.
5. As regards prayer No.ii, it is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court in the case Biju V State of Kerala reported in 2007(2) KLT 280 has laid down specific guidelines so that the Magistrates do not mechanically order to remand the accused in such cases and this Court has made clear that the Magistrate concerned will have to act judicially and judiciously taking into consideration the crucial aspect that while passing orders on bail applications which in effect deal with personal liberty, the courts will have to exercise its discretion in a judicial manner. The learned counsel has also relied on the decision of this Court in the case Vineeth Somarajan V State of Kerala reported in 2009(3) KLT 576, which in turn has also relied on the aforementioned legal principles laid down by this Court in the decision reported in 2007(2) KLT 280.
6. In the facts and circumstances of this case and in the interest of justice it is ordered that in case the petitioner appears and surrenders before the aforementioned jurisdictional Magistrate concerned on 03.12.2014 and move for recall of the non-bailable warrant, and application for bail, then the learned Magistrate shall consider the applications on the same day on merits and pass appropriate orders thereof in accordance with law. It is open to the petitioner to produce photo copies of the reported decisions of this Court that he intends to rely on before the learned Magistrate. It is further ordered in the interest of justice that until orders are passed by the learned Magistrate as aforesaid, further coercive steps in pursuance of the impugned non-bailable warrant will be kept in abeyance.
With these observations and directions the Crl.M.C stands finally disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.
Vdv //True Copy// P.A to Judge