IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2243 of 2008()
1. B.NAZAR
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SATHYAJITH R
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :16/06/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 2243 of 2008
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of June, 2008
ORDER
The petitioner is the accused in a crime registered under
Sec.420 of the IPC. The crime has been registered on the
basis of a private complaint filed by the 1st
respondent/complainant before the learned Magistrate which
was referred to the police under Sec.156(3) of the Cr.P.C.
Investigation is in progress. The petitioner has already been
granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge.
2. The petitioner, at this stage, has come to this Court
with a prayer that the crime registered against him and all
further proceedings in pursuance of the same may be quashed
invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to
this Court under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C.
3. What is the reason? The learned counsel for the
Crl.M.C. No. 2243 of 2008 -: 2 :-
petitioner submits that the allegations raised in the complaint
are all false and that the petitioner was not involved in any
attempt to cheat the de facto complainant. There is some
disputes between the parties about the rates of remuneration
payable to the petitioner and it is that dispute which has been
blown out of proportion and described as a culpable offence. If
the allegations are accepted in toto, no offence would be
revealed. The petitioner deserves to be spared of the
undeserved trauma of continuance of such proceedings against
him. This is a fit case where the powers under Sec.482 of the
Cr.P.C. can and ought to be invoked in favour of the petitioner,
contends the learned counsel.
4. I have gone through the averments in the complaint. I
shall carefully avoid any detailed discussions on merits about the
acceptability of the allegations. I have taken note of the
allegations including the allegation of misrepresentation of the
qualifications of the petitioner. I have taken note of the
allegations regarding false information given in the letter head
of the petitioner. I do take note of the significant circumstance
that the petitioner has already been granted anticipatory bail by
the learned Sessions Judge. It is, of course, true that the powers
under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. are wide enough to clothe the court
Crl.M.C. No. 2243 of 2008 -: 3 :-
with the powers to quash an FIR in an appropriate case in the
interests of justice. The learned counsel for the petitioner
contends that there is admittedly some disputes between the
parties and instead of resolving the same in a proper and legal
manner, he is being held to ransom by the initiation of criminal
proceedings against him.
5. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I am not
persuaded to agree that this is a fit case where the
extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C.
can or ought to be invoked. The petitioner appears to contend
that he has a strong case to be urged to show that he is not
guilty of any cheating. It is not for me, at this stage, to
speculate. The Investigating Officer, I must assume, shall
conduct a proper investigation, came to proper conclusions and
report the true facts to the learned Magistrate. In every case
where reference by the police or discharge by the court is a
possibility, it is not necessary for this Court to invoke the
extraordinary jurisdiction under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. I do
take note of the further fact that the petitioner has already been
granted anticipatory bail. He is unlikely to suffer any prejudice
on account of the pendency of the investigation. I do expect the
Investigating Officer to complete the investigation at the
Crl.M.C. No. 2243 of 2008 -: 4 :-
earliest and submit a final report to the court. If the petitioner
has a grievance that any condition imposed on him by the order
of anticipatory bail is causing difficulties to him, it is certainly for
him to move the learned Sessions Judge who granted the
anticipatory bail to modify the condition.
6. In any view of the matter, I am not persuaded to agree
that the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. can or ought to be
invoked at this stage.
7. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed; but with the
above observations.
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/