IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2008 / 3RD ASHADHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 219 of 2008() ------------------------ CC.209/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT - I, IDUKKI .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED 2-7 ----------------------- 1. K.K.KURIAKOSE, S/O.KURIAKOSE, KUTHANAPPILLIL HOUSE, MANIPPARA KARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. JOY JOSEPH, S/O.DEVASSIA, KOKKATTU HOUSE, MANIYARANKUDY P.O. 3. JOSE VARKEY, S/O.VARKEY, PADINJAREKKARA HOUSE, CHERUTHONY, IDUKKI COLONY P.O. 4. JAMES JOSEPH, S/O.JOHN, THADATHIL HOUSE, VAZHATHOPPE, THADIYAMPADU P.O. 5. T.J.JOSE, S/O.JOHN, THADATHIL HOUSE, VAZHATHOPPE, THADIYAMPADU P.O. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, (CRIME NO.79 OF 2003 OF IDUKKI POLICE STATION). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.219 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of June 2008 O R D E R The petitioners are accused 2 to 7 in a prosecution for offences punishable inter alia under Sections 120B and 409 I.P.C. Cognizance was taken in the year 2006. The petitioners have appeared before the learned Magistrate. Charges have already framed. Trial has already commenced. Two witnesses have already been examined as PWs 1 and 2. It is at that stage the petitioners have chosen to come before this court with an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. They pray that such extraordinary inherent jurisdiction may be invoked to bring to premature termination the prosecution against the petitioners. 2. What is the need to invoke such extraordinary jurisdiction at this juncture? Why did not the petitioners come to this court immediately after cognizance was taken? Why did they not argue for a discharge? Why did they not challenge the order framing charge? Why did they, even after framing charge, until PWs 1 and 2 were examined not choose to come before this court with this prayer under Section 482 Cr.P.C? Crl.M.C.No.219/08 2 3. To the above questions, I do not get any satisfactory answers and for that precise reason, I am persuaded to hold that there is no necessity to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction at this stage. 4. In the result, this Crl.M.C is dismissed but with the specific observation that the petitioners shall be at liberty to raise all relevant points including the contention that the prosecution is bad for want of sanction, they allegedly being public servants before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate uninfluenced by any previous decision taken on the question by the learned Magistrate must consider the same afresh at the stage of final disposal on the basis of the materials made available till then. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.219/08 3 Crl.M.C.No.219/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007