Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

A.K. RIJU, S/O. KELUKKUTTY versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


A.K. RIJU, S/O. KELUKKUTTY v. STATE OF KERALA - Crl MC No. 120 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 1259 (17 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 120 of 2007()

1. A.K. RIJU, S/O. KELUKKUTTY,
... Petitioner

2. K. UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O. VISWANATHAN,

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.GEO PAUL

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :17/01/2007

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 120 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 17th day of January, 2007

O R D E R

The petitioners are accused Nos. 4 and 5 in a prosecution, inter alia, under section 3 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The offence alleged against the petitioners is a warrant offence. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of the final report submitted by the police after due investigation.

2. The crux of the allegations is that the petitioners, along with other accused persons, were found indulging in the activity of running a brothel and in promiscuous sexual intercourse at a named premises. I do not want to go into the details of the case in this order. Cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. The petitioners have been summoned to appear. It is their contention that the allegations do not justify initiation of prosecution against them. In the nature of the allegations raised, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case where the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction can or ought to be invoked in favour of the petitioners. In every case where a discharge or acquittal is a possibility, it is not for this Court to invoke Crl.M.C.No. 120 of 2007 2 the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is for such accused persons to appear before the learned Magistrate and claim premature termination of the prosecution. The learned Magistrate is bound to consider such claim under Section 239/240 Cr.P.C. This is not to say that in an appropriate case this Court cannot resort to the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. But I am satisfied that this is not a fit case where such extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction ought to be invoked to save the petitioners of their responsibility to appear before the the learned Magistrate and claim discharge/acquittal.

3. This Crl.M.C. is hence dismissed. But I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this Crl.M.C. will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioners to claim discharge/acquittal at the appropriate stage before the learned Magistrate. (R. BASANT) Judge tm


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.