Karnataka High Court
P Moideen vs State By on 7 July, 2021
Author: K.Somashekar
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2973 OF 2019
BETWEEN
P. Moideen
S/o Abdul Kadher
Aged about 42 years
R/o K.K. Puram House
Cherkala, Chengala Post
Kasaragaod District
Kerala - 671541.
... Petitioner
(By Sri. B Lethif - Advocate)
AND
State by
Puttur Rural Police Station
Dakshina Kannada
Represented by Sate Public Prosecutor
High Court Building
Bangalore - 01.
... Respondent
(By Sri. Rahul Rai .K - HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to quash the
criminal proceeding against the petitioner in
S.C.No.88/2003 (LPC 4/2011) pending on the file of
V-Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Puttur, D.K., for
:2:
the offences punishable under Section 489-B, 489-C r/w
Sec. 34 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day,
the court made the following:
ORDER
Learned HCGP for the State is present before court
physically.
2. Learned counsel Shri B. Lethif for petitioner
appears before court physically and submits that the case
in Crl.A.No.569/2020 is pending before a Division Bench
of this court relating to acquittal judgment rendered by
the Trial Court in S.C.No.5001/2017 in respect of
Accused No.1. But this petitioner is arraigned as Accused
No.3 in a split up case in S.C.No.88/2003 for offences
punishable under Sections 489B and 489C read with
Section 34 of the IPC, 1860.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that though the case in S.C.No.88/2003 is
pending for trial against the accused, but the Trial Court
had issued coercive process in terms of NBW against him
and the same is in force. In the meanwhile, learned
counsel for the petitioner seeks dismissal of this petition
as not pressed.
4. In support of his contention, he has facilitated
reliance rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in the case of UMESH vs. STATE OF KERALA ((2017) 3
SCC 112)) and also an order rendered by a co-ordinate
Bench of this court in Crl.P.No.102097/2018 dated
09.01.2019.
5. However, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner is not inclined to persuade this
matter. Therefore, it is not required to dwell in detail as
regards the offences lugged against the accused in
S.C.No.88/2003 where the accused is required to face
trial. Therefore, keeping in view the submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioner, this petition is
dismissed as not pressed.
6. However, learned counsel further fairly submits
that if the petitioner / accused surrenders before the Trial
Court in S.C.No.88/2003, liberty may be granted to him
to file necessary application seeking discharge from the
offences lugged against him in S.C.No.88/2003.
7. This submission of the learned counsel is placed
on record. Accordingly, if the petitioner / Accused No.3
surrenders before the Trial Court in S.C.No.88/2003,
permission is granted to him only to the extent of filing
necessary application in accordance with the relevant
provisions of the Cr.P.C. seeking any remedial measures,
i.e. under Section 439 Cr.P.C., after furnishing a copy of
the same to the learned Public Prosecutor in order to file
his response if any. If filed, the said application shall be
disposed of by the Trial Court on merits, in accordance
with law.
With the said observation, the petition is dismissed
as not pressed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KS
