IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 2541 of 2006()
1. P.C.SOMAN S/O.SANKUNNY AGED 52 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
3. REGIONAL MANAGER,
4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.K.PAVITHRAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :09/01/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 2541 of 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 9th day of January, 2007
O R D E R
The petitioner is the first accused in a prosecution under
Section 409 I.P.C. The case has been pending before the learned
Magistrate as C.C.No. 284 of 2000. Charges were framed long back.
The case has not been taken up for trial. The petitioner has come to
this Court with a prayer that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may
be invoked to quash the proceedings.
2. What is the reason? According to the petitioner, pendency
of this case is affecting his prospects for promotions in employment.
Further, he submits that Annex. III letter has been written by the Asst.
Manager of the Taluk Depot, Ottapalam informing him that the over
writings and re-writings in the stock register, which is relevant to the
charge leveled against the petitioner, were not intentional and
occurred due to a clerical error. They were not purposeful or willful,
it is stated in Annex. III. According to the petitioner, he received a
letter form the Additional General Manager of the Kerala State
Civil Supplies Corporation, a copy of which is produced as
Crl.M.C.No. 2541 of 2006 2
Annex.IV, in which it is stated that the complaint cannot be withdrawn as
the offence is non-compoundable. Relying on Annexs. III and IV, the
contention is raised that the proceedings are liable to be quashed.
3. I have been taken through Annexs. III and IV They do not
specifically refer to the allegations raised in the F.I. statement or in the final
report. Charges have already been framed also. The vague and general
statements available in Annexs. III and IV, are, according to me, certainly
not sufficient to justify the invocation of the extra ordinary jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
In these circumstances this Crl.M.C. cannot be allowed. However, I am
shocked to note that the proceedings initiated as early as in 2000 has not
come to an end so far. I am satisfied that a direction can be issued to the
learned Magistrate to dispose of C.C. 284 of 2000 as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date on which
a copy of this order is placed before the learned Magistrate. Compliance
shall be reported to this Court.
Crl.M.C.No. 2541 of 2006 3
4. With the above observations, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed.
5. Hand over copy of the order to the learned counsel for the
petitioner forthwith.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm