A petitioner cannot benefit from discharge orders without surrendering to court jurisdiction amidst ongoing coercive actions.

ORDER

Dated this the 12^th day of February, 2026 The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.109/2019 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur (‘Trial Court’, in short) which has originated from Crime No.1378/2012 registered by the Town East Police Station, Thrissur.

2. The petitioner has filed the Crl.M.C on the assertion that the 4^th accused has been discharged of the offences under Sections 420 , 406, 414, 120B, 201 and 212 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ) and the 1^st accused has been discharged of the offences under Sections 406 , 414, 120B, 201 and 212 . However, the offence against the 1^st accused with respect to 420 is attracted against him. The petitioner is on the same footing as that of the 4^th accused. Therefore, the entire proceedings against the petitioner may be quashed.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor on instructions, submits that, the case against the petitioner has been split up and there is a non-bailable warrant issued against him and steps under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C have been initiated. The petitioner is still abroad. Moreover, the petitioner cannot seek the benefit of Annexure A9 order, which is only considered with respect to accused 1 and 4. Hence, it would be upto the petitioner to approach the Trial Court and file an application for discharge and then get it considered on its merits.

5. Undisputably, the case against the petitioner was split up, there is a non-bailable warrant issued against him and steps under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C are also pending against him. Taking into consideration the fact that there are coercive proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner and that the accused 1 and 4 have only been discharged of some of the offences alleged against them, I am of the definite view that the petitioner cannot get the benefit of Annexure A9 order unless he surrenders himself and subjects himself to the jurisdiction of the Trial Court.

In the aforesaid circumstances, I dismiss the Crl.M.C, but permit the petitioner to surrender before the Trial Court within a week from today and file applications to recall the non-bailable warrant issued against him and enlarge him on bail, after serving advance copies on the learned Public Prosecutor. If such applications are filed within the stipulated time period, the Trial Court is directed to consider and dispose the applications, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, preferably on the very same day the petitioner surrenders before the Trial Court. In order to enable the petitioner to surrender before the Trial Court, coercive proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one week from today. Sd/-

C.S.DIAS JUDGE