IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2008 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 751 of 2008() ------------------------ (CRIME NO.88/08 OF IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION) PETITIONER: ------------- MUHAMMED ANSARI, S/O.N.MOIDEEN SHAH WHITE HOUSE, CHEMBUKKAVU, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SREEJITH RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,IRINJALAKUDA. 3. KUNJU AYSHUMMA, S/O.UNNI KUZHIKANDATHIL HOUSE, THEKKUMMURI KAROOPPADANNA, KODUNGALLOOR. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 751 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner faces allegations under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC in a crime registered at the Irinjalakuda Police Station of Thrissur District. The petitioner is the owner of a car bearing registration No. KL 8/S 5104. His car was allegedly involved in an accident. In the FIR, the petitioner is not named. But the accused is arrayed as the driver of the car, No. KL 8/S 5104. 2. According to the petitioner the accident did not take place in the manner alleged in the F.I. Statement. According to him the accident has taken place on account of the indiscretion of the victim. The victim had been adequately compensated also. The victim has no grievance against the petitioner herein. In these circumstances, the continuation of the investigation against him is unjustified and works out great prejudice and hardship and loss to him, it is urged. It is prayed that order may be issued to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 3. I am afraid that the request is misconceived and not Crl.M.C. No. 751 OF 2008 2 justified. The police is investigating into the crime. The identity of the driver will have to be ascertained. The culpable responsibility, if any, of the driver for the accident will also have to be ascertained. In these circumstances, the fact that the victim has been adequately compensated and she is willing to oblige the petitioner herein, cannot obviously persuade this Court to bring this investigation to premature termination. The jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C is an extraordinary inherent jurisdiction and such jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a matter of course. I am not persuaded to agree that there is any justification for invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. This petition is accordingly dismissed. I may hasten to observe that I have not intended to express any final opinion on the complicity of the petitioner. Such complicity will have to be investigated into by the police. The police may come to appropriate conclusions on the basis of the materials which are collected. Dismissal of this petition will not oblige the investigating officer to take any action against the petitioner. I only make it Crl.M.C. No. 751 OF 2008 3 clear that proper investigation must be conducted and completed at the earliest and appropriate action will have to be taken by the investigating officer. R. BASANT, JUDGE ttb Crl.M.C. No. 751 OF 2008 4 Crl.M.C. No. 751 OF 2008 5