IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2011 / 14TH POUSHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3220 of 2006() ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- P.JAYAN, S/O. PONNU, SASTHAMKONNAM, KIZHAKKUMKARA, POOVACHAL P.O., KATTADADA, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.B.MOHANAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. * ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED * ADDL.R2: Y.GOPU @ GEORGE, SASTHAMKONNAN, KIZHAKKUMKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, POOVACHAL.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. * ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 31/10/06 IN CRL.MA.NO. 5599/06 R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SABU SREEDHARAN ADDL.R2 BY ADV.SRI.M.R.DHANIL THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. ------------------------------------ CRL.M.C NO. 3220 of 2006 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 04th day of January, 2011 ORDER This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the accused in S.C.No.340/2001on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Adhoc No.III, Thiruvananthapuram for offence under Section 366 A IPC. The brief allegation is that the petitioner had induced a minor girl aged 17 years and daughter of the defacto complainant to go away from the lawful custody of the guardian knowing that it is likely that she will be forced or reduced to illicit intercause with another person. By Annexure A1 FIR, it appears that the case was registered for offence under Section 366A . In Annexure A-5 final report, it is stated that only an offence under Section 363 IPC was CRL.M.C NO. 3220 of 2006 2 disclosed. However, in column number 4 of Annexure A5, the offence shown is 366 A IPC and it appears that the learned Magistrate taken cognizance as CP 3/2000 for offence under Section 366A IPC. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, neither an offence under Section 363 IPC nor under Section 366 A IPC was committed by the petitioner and Ext. A5 charge sheet is not sustainable and the petitioner is entitled to be discharged. It is not known as to what was the procedure thereafter adapted by the learned Magistrate. However it is conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that regarding the maintainability of the charge, no argument was advanced. The argument now raised is the one to be looked into by the trial court before framing the charge and not by this Court in exercise of the CRL.M.C NO. 3220 of 2006 3 inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC. Admitting this petition, there was an interim stay of the further proceedings. It is submitted that further proceedings are thus remain stayed and there was no opportunity to argue for discharge. In the above circumstance, I find that the proper procedure open to the petitioner is to argue for a discharge before the trial Court and not to invoke jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to apply for a discharge under Section 227 or 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the case may be, in the event there exists ground for discharge. P.S. GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. rkc