High Court Kerala High Court

K.Salih vs The State Of Kerala Represented on 6 June, 2007

Kerala High Court
K.Salih vs The State Of Kerala Represented on 6 June, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 1512 of 2007()


1. K.SALIH, AGED 30 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. S.A.SHAFI, AGED 30 YEARS,
3. A.ABDULLA, AGED 35 YEARS,
4. K.V.VINOD, AGED 33 YEARS,

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :06/06/2007

 O R D E R






                               R. BASANT, J.

               -------------------------------------------------

                      CRL.M.C.NO. 1512 OF 2007

               -------------------------------------------------

                Dated this the  6th day of June, 2007



                                   ORDER

The petitioners are counter petitioners in a proceedings

initiated under Sec.109 of the Cr.P.C. by the Sub Divisional

Magistrate, Thalassery. The petitioners have come before this

Court with a prayer that the proceedings against them may be

quashed.

2. What are the reasons to justify the invocation of the

powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C.? Two grounds are

raised. First of all, the learned counsel for the petitioners

contends that they are not the residents within the jurisdiction

of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery, who has initiated

the proceedings and, in these circumstances, the Sub

Divisional Magistrate lacks the territorial jurisdiction to pass

the order.

3. After discussions at the Bar, the learned counsel for

the petitioners does not press that contention. It is evident

CRL.M.C.NO. 1512 OF 2007 -: 2 :-

that the apprehended mischief falls within the jurisdiction of the

Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery and in these

circumstances, the mere fact that the petitioners are not

residents within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate cannot affect

the jurisdiction of the Sub Divisional Magistrate.

4. Secondly, it is contended that the allegations are

unacceptable and do not constitute sufficient ground to initiate

the proceedings. I shall scrupulously avoid any expression of

opinion on merits. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that

the proceedings have already started and the principal witness

has already been examined and is remaining in the box cross-

examined in part. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that no

orders invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under

Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. need be passed in the matter.

5. 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 relevant

and appropriate contentions before the Sub Divisional

Magistrate.

Sd/-



                                                 (R. BASANT, JUDGE)


Nan/

              //true copy//            P.S. To Judge