IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 6 of 2009()
1. RAMAN NAMBOOTHIRI, AGED 46 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY P.PROSECUTOR,
... Respondent
2. SHARATH, AGED 34, S/O VISWAMBARAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.RAJIT
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :02/01/2009
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. of 6 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2009
O R D E R
The petitioner, who is said to be the Santhikaran in the
Guruvayur temple, has come to this Court with a prayer to invoke
the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
to quash a prosecution initiated against him. Cognizance has
been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police
after due investigation. The offences alleged include offences
punishable under Sections 341, 294(b) and 506 I.P.C. The
materials placed before me are not sufficient to precisely
understand whether the allegations are raised under the former or
the latter part of S.506 I.P.C.
2. According to the petitioner the allegations raised against
him are totally false. In any view of the matter the allegation
under Section 294(b) I.P.C. cannot stand. It is further alleged
that the allegation of physical restraint is only on the basis of
certain words uttered and it cannot be reckoned as restraint
Crl.M.C.No. of 6 2009
2
contemplated under Section 341 I.P.C. The counsel further contends
that it is extremely improper that a Santhikaran, who performs the
sublime duty and who is not expected to touch others, would have
indulged in such conduct.
3. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and
contours of the jurisdiction of this Court when called upon to invoke
the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction. Resolution of disputed
questions of fact cannot obviously be undertaken at this stage. This is
not again the occasion to weigh the materials in golden scales. I shall
not advert to the other contentions. Suffice it to say that the
allegations, if true, cannot be said to be insufficient to constitute the
allegation under Section 506 I.P.C. Even on that aspect, I do not want
to express any final opinion. The counsel appears to be sound in his
contention that the allegations even if accepted in toto, it is doubtful
whether the charge under Section 294(b) I.P.C. would lie.
4. I am, in these circumstances, of the opinion that the petitioner
must be relegated to raise his contentions before the learned
Magistrate. If the allegations are raised under Section 506(ii) I.P.C.
Crl.M.C.No. of 6 2009
3
certainly the plea of discharge can be raised under Section 239 Cr.P.C.
If not, appropriate contentions can be raised at the stage of Section 251
r/w. 258 Cr.P.C. as explained in Kamala Rajaram v. State of
Kerala (2005 (3) KLT 617). I am satisfied that it is not necessary to
invoke the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction at this stage.
5. This Crl.M.C. is dismissed. But I make it clear that the
dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the
petitioner to raise all appropriate and relevant contentions before the
learned Magistrate to claim premature termination of the proceedings
and if that be not successful acquittal at later stages.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm