JUDGMENT

KURIAN, J.

Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. In the nature of order we propose to pass in these matters it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondents.

4. The appellant is aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the High Court in quashing the criminal proceedings now pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chavakkad in CC Nos.289/1996 and 280/1996. The appellant is accused No.5 in both the cases.

5. According to the appellant, since he was not available for trial, trial in his case was separated and the Trial Court proceeded as against all the other accused. In CC No.289/1996, the first accused was convicted and the rest of the accused persons were acquitted and in the CC No.280/1996 all the accused persons have been acquitted. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the continuance of the proceedings before the Magistrate Court, as far as the appellant is concerned, is unnecessary harassment and wastage of time.

6. We find it difficult to appreciate the contention. Even if all contentions taken by the appellant are taken on their face value also, it is for the Magistrate concerned to consider those contentions in an appropriate app