IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2008 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4363 of 2005() ------------------------- CRIME NO.187/05 OF RAMAMANGALAM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED. -------------------- 1. M.V.GEORGE, NEDUMPAMPAKUDA, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, PAMPAKUDAKARA, ONAKKUR VILLAGE, PAMPAKUDA P.O. 2. JOHNY P.I. NEDUMPAMPAKUDA PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, PAMPAKUDAKARA, ONAKKUR VILLAGE, PAMPAKUDA P.O. 3. ROBIN GEORGE, S/O.N.V.GEORGE, NEDUMPAMPAKUDA PUTHEN PURAYIL HOUSE, PAMPAKUDAKKARA, ONAKKUR VILLAGE, PAMPAKUDA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT. ------------------------- 1. KUTTAPPAN, MARIKIDYIL HOUSE, PADIKKAMOLEL, PAMPAKUDA, PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RAMANAGALAM POLICE STATION, RAMAMANGALAM. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 4. KUTTY, W/O.KUTTAPPAN, MARIKUDIYIL PADIKKAMOLEL, PAMPAKUDA, PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR FOR R1,4 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C No.4363 of 2005 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2008 ORDER Petitioners are accused 1 to 3 in a crime registered, inter alia, under Sections 452 and 324 I.P.c. That crime has been registered on the basis of a private complaint filed before the learned Magistrate and referred to the police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend action against them. 2. It is at this stage that the petitioners have come before this Court with a prayer that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to quash the proceeding against them. 3. What is the reason ? The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations are totally false and that, in these circumstances, the petitioners do not deserve to endure the trauma of such a criminal investigation against them. 4. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The defacto complainant/respondents 1 and 4 have also entered appearance. The petition is opposed. Crl.M.C No.4363 of 2005 2 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation has revealed to the police that the 3rd petitioner/accused is not involved in the crime. Report has already been filed to delete him from the array of parties. The 3rd petitioner need not apprehend any further action against him. In so far as petitioners 1 and 2 are concerned, the learned Public Prosecutor contends that the police may be given opportunity to investigate the crime and come to appropriate conclusions about the acceptability and sustainability of the allegations raised. 6. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C can of course be invoked in an appropriate case to quash an investigation. But resort to such jurisdiction, cannot be a matter of course and compelling reasons must be shown to exist. Merely because the petitioner feels that the allegations against them are totally false and are raised with oblique motives, such jurisdiction cannot and need not be invoked. I am not persuaded to perceive any circumstances in this case which can justify or warrant the invocation of such extraordinary inherent jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners. I am satisfied that the investigators must be given time to complete the investigation and file the final report. Crl.M.C No.4363 of 2005 3 If the petitioners apprehend arrest, they may either surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail or if so advised, they can seek anticipatory bail from the competent courts. 7. This Crl.M.C, I am satisfied, deserves to be and his hereby dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-