IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4084 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- CRIME NO. 295/08 OF KATTOOR POLICE STATION PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- 1. ATHEESH V.K., AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE KAKKATHURTHY DESOM, EDATHIRINJI P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. JIBIN @ BIPIN, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O. JINENDRAPRASAD,KOPPULLIPARAMBIL HOUSE KAKKATHURTHY DESOM, EDATHIRINJI P.O. MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 3. ANILAN A.K., AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.KOCHAMI, ANAKATHIL HOUSE KAKKATHURTHY DESOM, EDATHIRINJI P.O. MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH CHAKYAT RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSEPCTOR OF POLICE KATTOOR, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. KANNAN, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. SUBRAMANIAN,VEETTMTHARAVEETIL, KAKKATHURTHY DESOM, EDATHIRINJI P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 3. MIDHUNRAJ, AGED 23 YEARS,S/O.RAJAN, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KAKKATHURTHY DESOM, EDATHIRINJI P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 4. VIJESH, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN OLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KAKKATHURTHY DESOM, EDATHIRINJI P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. ADV. SRI.BIJU .C. ABRAHAM FOR R2 TO R4 R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 4084 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of November, 2008 O R D E R The petitioners face allegations as accused 2, 5 and 6 in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 308 r/w. 149 I.P.C. Six accused persons are named in the F.I.R. The F.I. statement is given by none other than the second respondent/defacto complainant/victim. Altogether there are three victims. They are arrayed as respondents 2 to 4 in this petition. In the F.I. statement lodged, the second respondent has given the names of all the six accused persons. The police is investigating the crime. Three accused have already been arrested. They are in custody, it is submitted. The petitioners have not been arrested so far. They also apprehend imminent arrest. 2. At this stage the petitioners have come to this Court along with respondents 2 to 4 to apprise this Court of the fact that they have settled all their disputes. The second respondent, who Crl.M.C.No. 4084 of 2008 2 has lodged the F.I. statement, now submits that he did not know the names of the assailants. He collected it from some one and had given the same to the police in the F.I. statement. Now he submits that the petitioners are not involved in the occurrence at all. It is prayed that in the light of the stand taken by respondents 2 to 4, the crime registered in so far as it relates to the petitioners may be quashed. Investigation may continue in so far as the other accused are concerned. 3. The application is opposed by the learned Prosecutor, who submits that the investigation is at a very early stage. The present indications suggest that the petitioners are also culpably responsible. Verification by the Investigating Officer reveals that the victims have not willingly and voluntarily settled their disputes. At any rate, in the nature of the allegations raised, this is not a fit case for invocation of the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as enabled by the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19) and Nikil Merchant v. C.B.I. (2008 (3) KLT 769). This cannot be reckoned as a dispute which is personal and private between the parties. At any rate, such invocation may not be contemplated at this early stage of investigation. The Investigators Crl.M.C.No. 4084 of 2008 3 may be permitted to continue with the investigation and ascertain the truth, submits the learned P.P. 4. Having considered all the relevant circumstances I find merit in the opposition by the learned Prosecutor. I am not persuaded to agree that this is a fit case where the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot or Nikil Merchant referred above can or ought to be invoked. I have already adverted to the care and caution which must be employed by a court before it chooses to invoke the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot in the decisions in Santhosh v. State (2008 (3) KLT 240) and Babeesh @ Babin Kumar v. S.I. of Police (2008 (3) KHC 713). 5. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed. Needless to say the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioners to claim anticipatory bail or regular bail before appropriate court and to raise all necessary and appropriate contentions at later stages of the proceedings. (R. BASANT) Judge tm