Vivek Shil Ahuja vs State Of Kerala on 21 March, 2007

Kerala High Court
Vivek Shil Ahuja vs State Of Kerala on 21 March, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 506 of 2007(C)


1. VIVEK SHIL AHUJA, AGED 47,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. V.BABU, AGED 42,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SUB INSPECTOR OF
                       ...       Respondent

2. P.J.JOHNSON, AGED 36,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :21/03/2007

 O R D E R


                              R. BASANT, J.

              -------------------------------------------------

                      CRL.M.C.NO. 506 OF 2007

              -------------------------------------------------

              Dated this the 21st day of March, 2007


                                   ORDER

The petitioners have come to this Court with the prayer

that an F.I.R. registered against him i.e., Crime No.223/06 of

the Nadakkavu Police Station, may be quashed. The said

crime has been registered on the basis of a private complaint

filed by one of the employees of the petitioners. The

complaint was referred to the police under Sec.156(3) of the

Cr.P.C. Investigation is in progress.

2. There can be no dispute on the question of law. The

powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. takes within its sweep,

the powers to quash an F.I.R. which is registered by the police

also. The width, sweep and amplitude of the powers must

bring with it the need for circumspection. I shall not

encumber the records with any unnecessary detailed

discussion on merits. Suffice it to say that I am satisfied that

the ideal course which can be followed by the court in the

circumstances of this case is to permit the Investigator to

CRL.M.C.NO. 506 OF 2007 -: 2 :-

complete the investigation and file the final report. The

petitioners’ option to seek further relief in case such final report

is against them shall remain unfettered. I am, in these

circumstances, satisfied that the relief claimed – quashing of the

F.I.R. cannot and need not be granted invoking the powers under

Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. However, I am satisfied that the

petitioners, who are persons not residing within the State,

deserve to be granted protection against any unnecessary and

vexatious arrest. The learned counsel for the petitioners

submits that an anticipatory bail has already been granted in

favour of the petitioners by the learned Sessions Judge. The

petitioners, after indulgent extension of the time granted, were

permitted to surrender before the learned Magistrate on or

before 24/2/2007. But they have not been able to so surrender

on account of reasons beyond their control. The learned

counsel for the petitioners finally prays that, in the interests of

justice, the time granted under Annexures-A9 and A10 orders to

appear before the learned Magistrate may be extended and the

petitioners may be granted time till 2/4/2007 to appear before

the learned Magistrate as directed in Annexures-A9 and A10

orders i.e., orders dated 18/1/07 in Crl.M.C.No.45/07 and

CRL.M.C.NO. 506 OF 2007 -: 3 :-

Crl.M.P.No.282/07 dated 14/2/2007 both by the learned Sessions

Judge, Kozhikode. I am satisfied that though the said relief is not

specifically prayed for in the petition, the said lesser relief can

be granted in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.

3. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed; but the

petitioners are granted time till 2/4/2007 to comply with

Annexures-A9 and A10 orders.

Sd/-

(R. BASANT, JUDGE)

Nan/

//true copy//

P.S. to Judge

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *