IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3403 of 2007() ------------------------- CC.98/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MANANTHAVADY .................... PETITIONER: ------------ 1. C.M.GOVINDAN NAMBIAR, AGED 63 YEARS S/O. PARVATHY AMMA, CHANGADATH HOUSE, P.O. THARUVANA, PORUNNANNUR AMSOM CHANGADAM DESOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 2. MADHU PRASAD, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. GOVINDAN NAMBIAR, DO......DO. 3. JITHESH,AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. GOVINDAN NAMBIAR, DO....DO. 4. NANDEESH, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. GOVINDAN NAMBIAR, DO..DO.. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.JOSE SMT.TESSY JOSE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. MUHAMMED KUTTY, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. HYDRU, KARATHODY HOUSE, CHANGADAKADAVU, PANAMARAM P.O, CHERUKATTOOR AMSOM, MANANTHAVADY WAYANAD DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB SRI.M.H.HANIL KUMAR FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C No.3403 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of May, 2008 ORDER About an incident which took place on 27.12.06, the rival contestants raised allegations before the police. F.I.Rs were registered. Investigation was conducted. Charge sheet was filed in one of the two cases. Cognizance has been taken. Proceedings are pending before the learned Magistrate. Petitioners are the defacto complainants/injured persons in that prosecution. The 1st respondent herein is the accused in that case. 2. In the F.I.R registered at the instance of the petitioners, a negative final report was filed after investigation and the same was accepted by the learned Magistrate. The 1st respondent herein was aggrieved by such reference of his case by the police. He therefore filed a protest complaint before the learned Magistrate. After examining the 1st respondent and 2 witnesses at the stage of Section 200 Cr.P.C, the learned Magistrate issued processes against the petitioners and the said case is pending as C.C.No.98 of 2007. The case against the 1st respondent is pending before the same court as C.C.56 of 2007. 3. The petitioners have now come before this Court with a contention that the cognizance taken against them is not justified. Crl.M.C No.3403 of 2007 2 They pray that the proceedings against them may be quashed invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. They rely on the fact that the police had investigated the crime and have already come to the conclusion that the allegations are not justified. They further contend that the allegations being totally false, the petitioners do not deserve to endure the trauma of continuance of the criminal prosecution against them. 4. Allegations and counter allegations have been traded by the rival contestants. The police after investigation has chosen to accept the allegations of the petitioners alone. The 1st respondent, aggrieved by the refer report submitted in the complaint filed by him, had approached the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate, after following the procedure in accordance with law, had taken cognizance of the offences alleged against the petitioners. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C has been conducted by the learned Magistrate and, in these circumstances, taking of cognizance after a negative final report was filed by the police, is not justified. 6. I am unable to perceive any reasons which can persuade this Court to invoke the extraordinary inherent Crl.M.C No.3403 of 2007 3 jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate, it is seen, had examined the complainant and 2 witnesses on oath and only thereafter cognizance has been taken. I shall carefully avoid any detailed discussions on merits about the acceptability of the allegations against the petitioners. Suffice it to say that I am not persuaded to agree that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C deserve to be invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is for the petitioners to appear before the learned Magistrate and attempt to substantiate their contentions in the trial which is to be held. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if unnecessary insistence on personal appearance of the petitioners were made on all dates of posting, that would cause the petitioners great hardship and loss. The petitioners can certainly appear before the learned Magistrate and after they are enlarged on bail, they can request the learned Magistrate to exempt them from personal appearance. Such application must be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. 8. With the above observations, this Crl.M.C is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-