IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2008 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2243 of 2008() ------------------------- CRIME NO.134/08 OF THE FORT POLICE STATION, TRIVANDRUM. PETITIONER: ------------ B. NAZAR, AGED 30, S/O. P. BADARUDEEN, T.C.NO.41/2606, P.B. NIVAS, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE, MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-9. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI SRI.I.SHAHUL HAMEED RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SATHYAJITH.R., T.C.76/916, SATHYA NIVAS, KALLUMOODU, ANAYARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI. AMJAD ALI. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 2243 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2008 ORDER The petitioner is the accused in a crime registered under Sec.420 of the IPC. The crime has been registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the 1st respondent/complainant before the learned Magistrate which was referred to the police under Sec.156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner has already been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge. 2. The petitioner, at this stage, has come to this Court with a prayer that the crime registered against him and all further proceedings in pursuance of the same may be quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this Court under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. 3. What is the reason? The learned counsel for the Crl.M.C. No. 2243 of 2008 -: 2 :- petitioner submits that the allegations raised in the complaint are all false and that the petitioner was not involved in any attempt to cheat the de facto complainant. There is some disputes between the parties about the rates of remuneration payable to the petitioner and it is that dispute which has been blown out of proportion and described as a culpable offence. If the allegations are accepted in toto, no offence would be revealed. The petitioner deserves to be spared of the undeserved trauma of continuance of such proceedings against him. This is a fit case where the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. can and ought to be invoked in favour of the petitioner, contends the learned counsel. 4. I have gone through the averments in the complaint. I shall carefully avoid any detailed discussions on merits about the acceptability of the allegations. I have taken note of the allegations including the allegation of misrepresentation of the qualifications of the petitioner. I have taken note of the allegations regarding false information given in the letter head of the petitioner. I do take note of the significant circumstance that the petitioner has already been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge. It is, of course, true that the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. are wide enough to clothe the court Crl.M.C. No. 2243 of 2008 -: 3 :- with the powers to quash an FIR in an appropriate case in the interests of justice. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is admittedly some disputes between the parties and instead of resolving the same in a proper and legal manner, he is being held to ransom by the initiation of criminal proceedings against him. 5. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I am not persuaded to agree that this is a fit case where the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. can or ought to be invoked. The petitioner appears to contend that he has a strong case to be urged to show that he is not guilty of any cheating. It is not for me, at this stage, to speculate. The Investigating Officer, I must assume, shall conduct a proper investigation, came to proper conclusions and report the true facts to the learned Magistrate. In every case where reference by the police or discharge by the court is a possibility, it is not necessary for this Court to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. I do take note of the further fact that the petitioner has already been granted anticipatory bail. He is unlikely to suffer any prejudice on account of the pendency of the investigation. I do expect the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation at the Crl.M.C. No. 2243 of 2008 -: 4 :- earliest and submit a final report to the court. If the petitioner has a grievance that any condition imposed on him by the order of anticipatory bail is causing difficulties to him, it is certainly for him to move the learned Sessions Judge who granted the anticipatory bail to modify the condition. 6. In any view of the matter, I am not persuaded to agree that the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. can or ought to be invoked at this stage. 7. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed; but with the above observations. (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/