IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 2980 of 2006()
1. MR. KUNHALAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SMT.SREEKALA KRISHNADAS
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :29/03/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.2980 of 2006
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of March, 2007
ORDER
The petitioner is the 4th accused in a prosecution for the offence
punishable, inter alia, under Section 332 read with 149 I.P.C and
Section 3(1) of the P.D.P.P Act. The crux of the allegations against the
petitioner is that he was a member of an unlawful assembly of persons
who had allegedly thrown stones at a K.S.R.T.C bus, which was
passing by. The petitioner along with co-accused was allegedly
arrested by the police officials in the course of the incident in which
they had allegedly committed the crime.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is absolutely innocent. He happened to be present at the
scene of the crime, a busy market centre, only because he had gone
there to purchase medicine for his daughter. He has nothing to do
with the incident that had taken place. He had been unnecessarily
arrayed as an accused. Counsel brings to the notice of the Court
certain news paper reports which show that the petitioner had
complained even at the earliest stages that he was not involved in the
incident.
Crl.M.C.No.2980 of 2006 2
3. The case diary has been placed before me for my perusal.
The F.I statement as well as the statements of witness recorded do
indicate that the miscreants who were allegedly found indulging in
culpable overt acts were caught by the police personnel and arrested.
They included the petitioner herein also. At the moment and with the
available inputs, I do not find any warrant for invoking the
extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this Court. Disputed
questions of fact cannot obviously be attempted to be resolved by
invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that if
insistence on personal appearance of the petitioner were made, it
would cause great hardship and prejudice to the petitioner. I have no
reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would insist on such
personal appearance unnecessarily. No Court should unnecessarily
insist on the personal appearance of the accused unless such personal
presence is necessary for the progress of trial in the case. It is for the
petitioner to apply for exemption before the learned Magistrate and the
learned Magistrate must consider such application in accordance with
law and on merits. Unnecessary personal appearance should not be
insisted by any criminal Court.
Crl.M.C.No.2980 of 2006 3
6. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. I may
hasten to observe that the dismissal of this Crl.M.C will not in any way
fetter the rights of the petitioner to raise all appropriate and relevant
contentions before the learned Magistrate. I have only chosen to hold
that powers under Section 482 cannot and need not be invoked in
favour of the petitioner.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-