IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 1355 of 2007()
1. VIJAYAN, S/O.N.K.VELANTHEYYAN,
... Petitioner
2. GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O.N.K.VELANTHEYYAN,
3. CHENTHAMARAKSHAN, S/O.N.K.VELANTHEYYAN,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE
... Respondent
2. SAROJINI, W/O.CHANDRAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K.
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :30/05/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
CRL.M.C.NO. 1355 OF 2007
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of May, 2007
ORDER
The petitioners are accused 1 to 3 in a prosecution
launched under Secs.341, 323 and 506(1) read with Sec.34 of
the IPC. Cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate on
the basis of a final report submitted by the police, a copy of
which is produced as Annexure-C. Investigation commenced
on the basis of Annexure-B – First Information Statement
which led to the registration of Annexure-A – FIR. Altogether,
5 accused persons are shown as accused in Annexures-A and B.
But, after investigation, the police has filed charge sheet only
against the petitioners herein. It is stated that the petitioners
have appeared before the learned Magistrate. They have
come to this Court with this petition to invoke the powers
under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.
2. What are the reasons? The learned counsel for the
CRL.M.C.NO. 1355 OF 2007 -: 2 :-
petitioners contends that though it is true that the respondent/
complainant had come to the house of the accused on the date in
question, all other allegations are totally false and non-existent.
Convenient allegations have been raised with the only intention
of vexing and harassing the petitioners. The learned counsel for
the petitioners specifically points out that though the allegations
in the First Informations Statement is that the documents were
torn and destroyed by fire, the present allegation in the final
report is only that they were torn and destroyed. Similarly,
though there were five accused persons initially, two of them
have been dropped from the array of parties conveying
unmistakably that the initial version of the complainant has not
been accepted even by the police.
3. I have considered the contentions. I must remind myself
the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction of this Court
under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. It is an extraordinary inherent
jurisdiction which is available. It is to be invoked in exceptional
cases only and that too in aid of justice to prevent the
miscarriage of justice and abuse the process of the court.
Incongruity in the prosecution case, contradiction between the
witnesses etc., are not by themselves sufficient to persuade this
CRL.M.C.NO. 1355 OF 2007 -: 3 :-
court to invoke such jurisdiction under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C.
4. I have been taken through Annexures-A, B and C in
detail. I have been apprised of the background of the dispute
between the parties. But having considered all this, I am of
opinion that no sufficient ground to justify the invocation of the
powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. have been shown to exist.
Lest, it might prejudice the interests of the parties, I am not
proceeding to narrate the averments in greater detail or
consider the contentions on merits in extenso.
5. I need only mention that it is for the petitioners to raise
all these contentions before the learned Magistrate in the course
of the proceedings and for the learned Magistrate to take
appropriate decisions on such contentions. I have not intended
to express any opinion on merits. I only take the view that
sufficient circumstances to invoke the powers under Sec.482 of
the Cr.P.C. are not shown to exist.
6. Finally, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that great prejudice, hardship and loss would result if the
personal appearance of the petitioners were ritualistically
insisted by the learned Magistrate on all dates of posting. The
petitioners can apply for exemption and I find no reason to
CRL.M.C.NO. 1355 OF 2007 -: 4 :-
assume that the learned Magistrate shall not consider such
application on merits and favourably.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge