THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the aforecaptioned Crl.M.C filed under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C is as follows:

(2.) Heard Sri.Antony Mathew appearing for the petitioners (accused), Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State of Kerala and Sri.Raju Sebastian Vadakkekkara, learned counsel appearing for 2nd & 3rd respondents (complainants).

(3.) The challenge made in this case is against the institution of the impugned Annexure-A20 protest complaint dated 25.06.2016, which has led to the pendency of summary trial case S.T.No.816/2016 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court (Economic Offences), Ernakulam. This Court had initially passed an interim stay order on 10.03.2017 in Crl.M.A No.2701/2017 in the above Crl.M.C directing that there shall be an interim stay of further proceedings before the court below in S.T.No.816/2016 for three months. Later, this Court as per order dated 09.06.2017 had extended the interim order till 14.06.2017. Thereafter, there was no extension of the said interim order. However, on 21.12.2017, this Court had ordered that the case may be listed in the hearing list and that the interim order, which has already expired, will stand extended by two months from 21.12.2017. Thereafter, this Court has not extended the interim order. Now it is submitted by Sri.Raju Sebastian Vadakkekkara, learned counsel appearing for the 3 rd respondent (complainant) that the lower court has proceeded with the matter in relation to the summary trial case S.T.No.816/2016 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court (Economic Offences), Ernakulam and that the case is now at the stage of Sec.244 Cr.P.C evidence and two witnesses have already given their evidence and that one person has been additionally added as an accused in the accused array in this case. Hence, the factual correctness of the abovesaid submission is also concurred with by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused. So the case has proceeded further and the impugned proceedings have worked itself out, after the expiry of the stay order. Therefore, this petition need not be kept pending any longer. This Crl.M.C has been pending before this Court since 09.03.2017 and the impugned proceedings has worked out itself and therefore, it is not right and proper for this Court to keep the petition pending any longer. All contentions available to both sides in law are kept open to be raised by them before the court below in appropriate manner and in the manner known to law.