IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS MONDAY, THE 22^ND DAY OF MAY 2023 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1945 WP(CRL.) NO. 1194 OF 2022 PETITIONER :

T.A.JOSEPH, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O LATE T.J. ALEXANDER, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S CONFIDENT PROJECTS INDIA LIMITED, 308/2, S.A.ROAD, VYTTILA, KOCHI-682 019.

BY ADVS.

ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR)

ANIL ABEY JOSE RESPONDENTS :

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031

2 DEPUTY SUPERINTEND OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, ERNAKULAM RURAL, ALUVA POLICE STATION, PIN - 683 101.

3 E.SUBAIR, S/O IBRAHIM, KORANGATTUPARAMBU, MALIAKKAPADY, EDATHALA, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE, ALUVA, PIN – 683 101.

BY ADV E. SUBAIR, (Party-In-Person)

BY SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. -------------------------------- W.P.(Crl.) No.1194 of 2023 ---------------------------------

Dated this the 22^nd day of May, 2023

JUDGMENT

Petitioner is one of the accused in C.C.No.973/2011 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Aluva. He is also an accused in C.C.No.1116/2018 before the same court. Both the above cases are initiated at the behest of the 3^rd respondent.

2. The reliefs sought for in this writ petition are as follows :-

(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or direction quashing Exhibits P2 and P10 further directing the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva to drop the entire proceedings in C.C.No.973 of 2011 and C.C.No.1116 of 2018.

(ii) To pass an order of stay with respect to all further proceedings in C.C.No.973 of 2011 and C.C.No.1116 of 2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva pending disposal of this writ petition.

(iii) Pass such other orders which the petitioner may seek and this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to be granted in the interest of justice.

3. Ext.P2 is a protest complaint filed by the 3^rd respondent which is now pending as C.C.No.973 of 2011 before the earlier mentioned court while Ext.P10 is the final report filed in C.C.No.1116/2018 again before the court mentioned earlier.

4. Though the reliefs sought for in the writ petition are as noted earlier, during the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner confined his submissions against the procedural violation in Ext.P11 proceeding of the learned Magistrate. As per Ext.P11, the learned Magistrate had directed the trial in C.C.No.973/2011 to be conducted along with C.C.No.1116/2018 as per the provisions of Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

5. According to Sri.Abraham Mathew Vettoor, the procedure contemplated under Section 210 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be adopted when the offences alleged in both cases are different and also the accused arrayed in both the cases are different. He fairly referred to the decisions of this Court in Gireesh and Others v. Rahim and Another [2020 (4) KLT 77] as well as Samuel Mathai and Others v. State of Kerala and Another [2007 3 KHC 682]. The learned counsel also relied upon the decision in Pal @ Palla v. State of Utter Pradesh [(2010) 10 SCC 123] and contended that when the versions in the complaint case and the police report are totally different, the trial should be held separately and the evidence ought to be taken separately but by the same presiding officer to avoid conflicting decisions.

6. Though the reliefs sought for in the writ petition do not include a challenge against Ext.P11, since the learned counsel for the petitioner confined his submissions to the procedural impropriety of clubbing C.C.No.973/2011 and C.C.No.1116/2018 both pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva, I deem it appropriate to consider the validity of the procedure directed to be adopted in Ext.P11 proceedings dated 20.06.2022. The learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent also submitted