IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2008 / 2ND SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2813 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.217/2004 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PARAPPANANGADI .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------ M.JEEVANANDAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.GOVINDAN, 502, SHARADI NIKETHAN, DANAKOOR COMPLEX, SATHYANAGAR, BOGIVALLI, MUMBAI. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, (CRIME NO.117 OF 2002 OF C.B.C.I.D, KOZHIKODE) KOZHIKODE. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2813 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of July 2008 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable inter alia under Section 468 I.P.C. Cognizance was taken in the year 2004. The matter stands listed for trial to this date. It is at this juncture the petitioner has come before this court and filed this petition on 23/7/2008. It is prayed that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 2. What is the ground? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are two F.I.Rs registered in this case and that the final report filed on the basis of the later F.I.R is not justified and cannot confer jurisdiction on the court to proceed with the trial. There is yet another contention that the precise offence has not been committed within the jurisdiction of this court. 3. Why were these contentions not raised at the stage of framing charges? Why was the order framing charge not assailed before this court so far? No satisfactory or worthwhile Crl.M.C.No.2813/08 2 answers are forthcoming and the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner came to know of these grounds only now cannot be reckoned as satisfactory grounds. I must alertly note and I am called upon to invoke and exercise the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Such jurisdiction cannot certainly be invoked in the facts and circumstances of this case where the petitioner, it must be held, is contumaciously responsible for inaction and lethargy even assuming that all these statements are true. I am satisfied in these circumstances that the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot and need not be invoked. But I make it clear that I have not intended to express any opinion on the contentions that the petitioner wants to raise. He shall be at liberty to raise those contentions before the learned Magistrate in the trial which is to commence today. 4. With the above observations this Crl.M.C is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Crl.M.C.No.2813/08 3 Crl.M.C.No.2813/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008