High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
V.C. PANJALAKSHMI AMMA v. N. KUNHIRAMAN NAIR, S/O. KELU NAIR - Crl MC No. 1810 of 2007  RD-KL 9518 (5 June 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMCrl MC No. 1810 of 2007()
1. V.C. PANJALAKSHMI AMMA,
2. MALAPILAYI MANOHARAN, S/O. ACHU,
1. N. KUNHIRAMAN NAIR, S/O. KELU NAIR,
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.V.ASOKAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.Crl.M.C.No.1810 of 2007
Dated this the 5th day of June 2007
O R D E RThe petitioners are accused in a prosecution for offences punishable interalia under Section 420 I.P.C. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a private complaint filed by the complainant before the learned Magistrate. The short contention of the petitioners is that the averments in the complaint can admittedly reveal a civil liability and not a contumacious liability for the petitioners. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked and the proceedings may be quashed.
2. I have been taken through the averments in the complaint as also the sworn statement of witnesses examined prior to issue of process. I shall carefully avoid any detailed discussion on merits about the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data placed before the learned Magistrate lest that should affect the interests of either party in later stages of the proceedings before the learned Magistrate. Crl.M.C.No.1810/07 2
3. I take note of the fact that the jurisdiction which I am called upon to invoke and exercise is the one under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is an extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. Such jurisdiction is not to be invoked as a matter of course. Such jurisdiction has to be invoked only sparingly and in exceptional cases that too only in aid of justice. The mere fact that the accused persons may later be entitled for premature termination of proceedings by discharge or they may be entitled for acquittal is by itself no reason for High Court to invoke this extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. Has justice failed? Is there sufficient reason to short circuit the procedure prescribed by law and bring about premature termination by invoking the inherent jurisdiction? This is the crucial question to be considered. So reckoned, I do not find any compelling reason in the facts and circumstances of this case to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The mere fact that the accused persons may be entitled for discharge or acquittal at later stages of the trial is by itself no reason to short circuit the procedure prescribed by the court and invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C mechanically and as a matter of course. This, Crl.M.C.No.1810/07 3 I am satisfied, is a fit case where the petitioners must claim discharge under Section 245(1) if not under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if unnecessary insistence were made on the personal appearance of the petitioner before the learned Magistrate, the complainant would virtually be succeed in his attempt to vex and harass the petitioners. Appropriate directions in this regard, I am satisfied, shall serve the ends of justice.
5. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed but I may hasten to observe that the learned Magistrate shall not insist on the personal appearance of the petitioners unless it be absolutely necessary and for reasons to be recorded by the learned Magistrate and shall permit the petitioners to claim discharge at the stage of Section 245(2) or Section 245(1) Cr.P.C. as the case may be.
6. This petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed with the above observations.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Crl.M.C.No.1810/07 4 Crl.M.C.No.1810/07 5
ORDER21ST DAY OF MAY2007
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.