IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4323 of 2008()
1. ROHITH J. S/O.RAJENDRAN, 34 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
... Respondent
2. DR.EAPEN THOMAS, S/O.P.E.THOMAS,
For Petitioner :SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :13/11/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
Crl.M.C.No.4323 of 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of November 2008
O R D E R
The petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered
alleging the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. The
crime in turn has been registered on the basis of a private
complaint filed by the complainant which was referred to the
police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Investigation is in progress.
At the Bar it is fairly conceded that an application for
anticipatory bail has already been filed before the bail Bench of
this court and the same has been dismissed. The petitioner has
not challenged that order. He has not appeared before the
investigating officer or the learned Magistrate. Instead, he has
come before this court again with a prayer that invoking the
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C the F.I.R registered
against him may be quashed. There can be no dispute on the
proposition that in an appropriate case, the extraordinary
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked to
quash the F.I.R in the interests of justice. It is unnecessary to
advert to the legal principles which ought to be followed while
considering the prayer for quashing of such F.I.R. The principle
Crl.M.C.No.4323/08 2
appear to be well settled. The crux of the allegations is that the
petitioner had fraudulently induced the de facto complainant to
part with money by making false representations that he shall
secure a seat for a professional course for the son of the de facto
complainant.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner first of all
contended that there is acrimony between parties. The
petitioner had earlier filed a complaint against the de facto
complainant alleging that he has committed offences against the
petitioner. A crime was registered. The present attempt is only
to retaliate the petitioner by initiating the present proceedings.
3. Secondly it is contended that even the alleged
purpose for which the de facto complainant was allegedly
induced to part with money is culpable and therefore if the
allegation against the de facto complainant were accepted it
amounts to permitting an accomplice to proceed against another.
This is unjustified and cannot be accepted, it is urged.
4. Thirdly it is contended that even if the allegations
were accepted in toto, the ingredients of the offence under
Section 420 I.P.C are not revealed. The learned counsel for the
petitioner contends that even going by the admitted version of
Crl.M.C.No.4323/08 3
the de facto complainant in the complaint, the petitioner had
allegedly secured for the son of the de facto complainant a hall
ticket to enable him to appear for the entrance test.
5. At this early stage of the proceedings, it is
unnecessary and impermissible for this court to attempt to
render any authentic findings on the disputed questions of fact.
On the available inputs, it does not appear to be possible to
render any such authentic findings. Suffice it to say that I have
anxiously applied my mind to the controversies raised between
the contestants and I find no reasons to quash the F.I.R
registered under Section 420 I.P.C.
6. The contention that the allegations, even if accepted,
does not amount to an offence under Section 420 I.P.C, does not
find favour with me at this stage. I am not persuaded to feel that
the allegations if accepted would not constitute any offence at
all.
7. I may hasten to observe that I have not decided to
render final and authentic findings on any of the disputed
questions. I have adverted to facts only to satisfy myself that the
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C do not deserve to be invoked. I
make it clear that the observation made should not fetter the
Crl.M.C.No.4323/08 4
jurisdiction of the court below at appropriate stage as to come to
appropriate conclusion.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that there
may be a direction that the application for bail to be filed by the
petitioner after his surrender before the investigating officer or
the learned Magistrate may be considered on merits, in
accordance with law and expeditiously. Sufficient general
directions have already been issued in Alice George vs.Deputy
Superintendent of Police [2003(1)KLT 339]. It is not
necessary for this court in every subsequent case to issue
directions to the Magistracy to follow the dictum in Alice
George (Supra). Every court is bound to do the same. I have no
reason to assume that the same shall not be done. If the
directions are not complied with, the avenues of
challenge/complaint shall be available for the petitioner.
10. In the result, this petition is dismissed subject to the
above specific observations.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
Crl.M.C.No.4323/08 5
Crl.M.C.No.4323/08 6
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.C.No. of 2008
ORDER
09/07/2008