IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2762 of 2008()
1. K.P.SANTHOSH, S/O.PARAMESWARAN KOPPATHIL
... Petitioner
2. V.A.RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.ACHUTHAN NAIR,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.B.RAMACHANDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :30/07/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C No.2762 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of July, 2008
ORDER
Petitioners are accused 5 and 6 in a prosecution for offences
punishable, inter alia, under Section 120 B I.P.C. The crux of the
allegations against the petitioners is that they colluded with the
other accused and conspired to secure unjustified and undeserved
regularisation of themselves as drivers under the Devaswom Board.
The petitioners had secured such regularisation in appointment. On
the basis of the final report submitted by the investigator,
cognizance was taken by the Special Judge and Enquiry
Commissioner. Charges were framed as early as on 21.06.07. The
matter admittedly stands posted for trial to 02.08.08.
2. At this stage, the petitioners have come before this Court
with a prayer that the prosecution launched against them may be
quashed invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. What is
the reason ? Charges against the petitioners were framed as early
as on 21.06.07. The order framing charges is a revisable order. No
challenge has been raised so far in revision. The petitioners have
now chosen to come to this Court with this petition to invoke the
extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. When
the remedy of revision is available to the petitioners to challenge
Crl.M.C No.2762 of 2008 2
the impugned order and they have not chosen to challenge the
order in accordance with law within the time stipulated,
compelling and exceptional reasons must be shown to exist to
justify the invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction in
their favour. Such jurisdiction is not to be invoked as a matter of
course. Such jurisdiction cannot be invoked in favour of persons
who are guilty of unjustified and long slumber without taking any
effective action even in the wake of adverse orders passed
against them.
3. I shall carefully avoid any detailed discussions on
merits about the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility
of the materials collected. Suffice it to say that I am not
persuaded to agree that any such compelling and exceptional
reasons do exist which can justify the warrant or invocation of the
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to prematurely terminate the
proceedings against the petitioners.
4. 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 petitioners to raise all appropriate,
relevant and necessary contentions before the learned Special
Judge in the course of the trial.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-
Crl.M.C No.2762 of 2008 3