Full Judgment
Crl.M.C.No.6950/22 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 5TH KARTHIKA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 6950 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTSC 406/2013 OF SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCE U/A 33/1989, THALASSERY PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: 1 A.SUHAIL, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.ABOOBACKER, RESIDING AT "AZHIKODANTAKATHU HOUSE", MORAZA, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR, PIN - 670 567. 2 A.KHADEEJA, AGED 61 YEARS, W/O.ABOOBACKER, RESIDING AT "AZHIKKODANTAKATHU HOUSE", MORAZHA, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR, PIN - 670 567. BY ADVS. M.K.SUMOD ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) VIDYA M.K. THUSHARA.K RESPONDENT/STATE: 1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031. SMT.SREEJA V- SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.6950/22 2
ORDER
The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.939 of 2012 of Mayyil Police Station, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498 A read with Section 34 IPC.
2. The aforesaid crime was registered in connection with
the death of the wife of the 1 st petitioner, aged 28 years. The wife of the 1st petitioner and his four year old son were found dead in a well situated in the property of the petitioners and the crime was registered based on the information submitted by the father of the 1st petitioner. The allegation against the petitioners is that the death of the deceased was due to the ill-treatment of the petitioners by demanding dowry. Annexure-A1 is the FIR and Annexure-A2 is the final report. This Crl.M.C. is filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant to the same.
3. Heard Sri.M.K.Sumod, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt.Sreeja V., learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Crl.M.C.No.6950/22 3
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that
the averments contained in Annexure-A2 final report and the materials placed along with the same do not have the necessary materials for attracting the offence alleged. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would point out that the crime is of the year 2012 and the Sessions Case is of the year 2013. Right from the inception, the petitioners were absconding. Later, the petitioners appeared, and the trial of the said case is already commenced. As part of the same, two witnesses were already examined, and after that, both the petitioners absconded again. Therefore trial could not be completed.
5. After going through the materials placed on record
and also considering the fact that the trial has already commenced, the contention raised by the petitioners at this stage need not be considered. This is mainly because, even though the Sessions case is of the year, 2013, the petitioners approached this Court only in the year 2022 after the trial commenced, that too after the petitioners absconded. Since the trial has already commenced, I am of the view that it is only proper that the
Crl.M.C.No.6950/22 4 petitioners cooperate with the same, so as to enable the court to complete the proceedings as early as possible. In the result, I am not inclined to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioners. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE DG/29.10.22 Crl.M.C.No.6950/22 5 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6950/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO. 939/2012 OF THE MAYYIL POLICE Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FI STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE INFORMANT IN CRIME NO. 939/2012 OF THE MAYYIL POLICE STATION Annexure A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 939/2012 OF MAYYIL POLICE STATION