IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 120 of 2007()
1. A.K. RIJU, S/O. KELUKKUTTY,
... Petitioner
2. K. UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O. VISWANATHAN,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.GEO PAUL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :17/01/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 120 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 17th day of January, 2007
O R D E R
The petitioners are accused Nos. 4 and 5 in a prosecution, inter
alia, under section 3 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
The offence alleged against the petitioners is a warrant offence.
Cognizance has been taken on the basis of the final report submitted
by the police after due investigation.
2. The crux of the allegations is that the petitioners, along with
other accused persons, were found indulging in the activity of
running a brothel and in promiscuous sexual intercourse at a named
premises. I do not want to go into the details of the case in this order.
Cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. The
petitioners have been summoned to appear. It is their contention that
the allegations do not justify initiation of prosecution against them.
In the nature of the allegations raised, I am satisfied that this is not a
fit case where the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction can or ought to
be invoked in favour of the petitioners. In every case where a
discharge or acquittal is a possibility, it is not for this Court to invoke
Crl.M.C.No. 120 of 2007 2
the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is for such accused persons to
appear before the learned Magistrate and claim premature termination of
the prosecution. The learned Magistrate is bound to consider such claim
under Section 239/240 Cr.P.C. This is not to say that in an appropriate
case this Court cannot resort to the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. But I
am satisfied that this is not a fit case where such extra ordinary inherent
jurisdiction ought to be invoked to save the petitioners of their
responsibility to appear before the the learned Magistrate and claim
discharge/acquittal.
3. This Crl.M.C. is hence dismissed. But I may hasten to observe
that the dismissal of this Crl.M.C. will not in any way fetter the rights of the
petitioners to claim discharge/acquittal at the appropriate stage before the
learned Magistrate.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm