RIYAS SAINULABDEEN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the brother-in-law of the defacto complainant and the prosecution is under Section 498 (A) read with 34 I.P.C. The petitioner was the 5th accused shown in the final report. Cognizance was taken. But the petitioner was not available for trial. In these circumstances, the trial against the co-accused proceeded. Accused 1 to 4 and 6 were found not guilty and acquitted. The petitioner was not available at that stage. The case against the petitioner has been split up and subsequently transferred to the list of long pending cases. The petitioner now wants the proceedings against him to be quashed.

(2.) What is the reason ? The acquittal of the co-accused by itself cannot be a valid and sustainable ground for quashing of proceedings as has been held in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police [2006(1) KLT 552 (F.B)]. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defacto complainant has compounded the offence against the petitioner herein also. If that be so, the respondent has to come before this Court personally or through pleader and report this Court that the matter has been settled. In that even the dictum in B.S.Joshy v. State of Haryana [A.I.R(2003) S.C 1386] could have been involved. Though sufficient opportunity has been granted, the respondent has not entered appearance nor is there any statement filed by her before this Court to report that there has been composition of the offence in so far as it relates to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner now submits that the petitioner would face trial before the court below as he is not able to get the composition effected by the defacto complainant. The mere fact that she has compounded the offence as against the other accused persons is no reason for this Court to lightly assume that she must have compounded the offence against the petitioner herein also. In these circumstances, the prayer for quashing of proceedings cannot be accepted.

(3.) Finally the learned counsel for the petitioner only submits that there may be a direction to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam to dispose of the case against the petitioner as expeditiously as possible. He further submits that a non bailable warrant of arrest is pending against him. The learned Magistrate may be directed to consider his application for bail expeditiously and on merits.