IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4444 of 2008()
1. PUTHALATH BHASKARA PODUVAL AND ANOTHER
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.V.AMARESAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :19/11/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.4444 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of November, 2008
ORDER
Petitioners – father and daughter duo, are facing allegations
in a crime registered alleging commission of the offences
punishable under Sections 468 and 471 I.P.C. The defacto
complainant is the brother of the 1st accused/father. The crux of
the allegations is that a power of attorney allegedly executed by
a third brother, who allegedly is an imbecile, was forged by the
accused persons to facilitate fraudulent transfer of the rights of
the said imbecile brother in favour of the accused/daughter on
the strength of such power of attorney in favour of the accused/
father.
2. Crime has been registered. Investigation is in
progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest.
3. The petitioners have come to this Court with a prayer
that the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C may be invoked to quash the F.I.R registered against the
petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioners poses a
question. The counsel queries how the defacto complainant can
Crl.M.C. No.4444 of 2008 2
file a complaint on the basis of the alleged statement of the
alleged imbecile brother that he has not executed the power of
attorney. This is the crux of the contention raised. If the brother
is imbecile, then even in the absence of a complaint from him it
is perfectly possible for one brother of such person to lodge a
complaint. The question posed therefore is insufficient to
persuade this Court to invoke the extraordinary inherent
jurisdiction. The challenge against the F.I.R must, in these
circumstances, fail.
4. I must hasten to observe that I have not intended to
express any opinion on the acceptability of the allegations raised
against the petitioners in the F.I.R or the acceptability of the
defence which the petitioners want to set up. I only taken the
view that there are no compelling circumstances which can
persuade this Court to invoke the extraordinary inherent
jurisdiction to quash the F.I.R and thus thwart an investigation
which has already commenced.
5. It is submitted that the petitioners are prepared to
surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned
Magistrate and seek regular bail. Therefore it is prayed that
directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be issued to the
Crl.M.C. No.4444 of 2008 3
learned Magistrate to consider the application for bail on merits,
in accordance with law and expeditiously.
6. Sufficient general directions have already been issued
in Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police
[2003(1) KLT 339]. I am not satisfied that it is necessary for
this Court in every subsequent case to issue directions under
Section 482 Cr.P.C to the Magistracy to follow the dictum in
Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police .
Every court must do the same. I have no reason to assume that
the same shall not be done. If there be non compliance, the
avenues of challenge/complaint are available for the petitioners.
7. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but
with the above specific observations.
8. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel
for the petitioners for production before the court below.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-