IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2008 / 5TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2299 of 2008() ------------------------- CRIME NO.167/2008 OF NEELESWARAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER: PETITIONER ---------------------- 1. P. ABDUL KAREEM, S/O. E.K. ABDULLA, AGED 61, P.O. PARAPPA, KASARAGOD DT. 2. P. MAHEMOOD, S/O.E.K,. ABDULLA, AGED 58, SALLAS, THEKKEPPURAM, MANIKKOTH.P.O, KANHANGAD. 3. L.K. MUHAMMED KUNHI, S/O. LATE L.K. MOIDEEN, AGED 41, T.B. ROAD, KANHANGAD. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH S.I OF POLICE, NEELESWARAM POLICE STATION, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. IBRAHIM HAJI, S/O. ABDULLA HAJI, HABEEB VILLA, THALANGARA, KASARAGOD. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2299 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of June 2008 O R D E R The petitioners are accused 2,3 and 4 in a crime registered under Section 420 read with 34 I.P.C. Altogether there are four accused persons. I shall carefully avoid a detailed reference to facts. Suffice it to say that the crux of the allegations is that the de facto complainant was induced to part with a huge amount of Rs.75,00,000/- and promised that he shall be taken as business partner. Having so induced the de facto complainant to part with money, the promise was not performed. It is contended that it was with deceitful and fraudulent intent that the de facto complainant was deceived to enter into this transaction and part with money. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations raised in the complaint/F.I.S are inherently improbable and the theory advanced does not rhyme well with reason, logic and common sense. I will not say that the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are not justified altogether. But I am certainly of the opinion that the police cannot be denied the opportunity to conduct an investigation in the facts and circumstances alleged. It is not only prima facie impressions about probability and improbability which we will have to be considered, detailed interrogation of the de facto complainant and collection of Crl.M.C.No.2299/08 2 evidence may be necessary perhaps to support the allegations raised in the complaint. At any rate, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that at the moment the allegations in the F.I.S do sound to be improbable does deserve close scrutiny, I am not persuaded to invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the F.I.R registered. Compelling reasons must be shown to resort to such course. Such reasons are not available. However, I am satisfied that the petitioners should not be put to unnecessary harassment and embarrassment on the basis of the vague allegations raised in the F.I.S. In a situation like this, the petitioners have got to be directed to surrender before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail in the ordinary course. If they do so surrender after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders in such application on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I would specifically direct that such application must be considered and disposed of on the date of surrender itself if they surrender at 11 O'clock before the learned Magistrate, after giving sufficient prior notice of such surrender. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.2299/08 3 Crl.M.C.No.2299/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007