IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2009 / 1ST MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 300 of 2009 -------------------------------- (CRIME NO. 6/09 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.3: ------------------------------------------- RIYAS, S/O. ABDUL KHADER, AGED 20 YEARS, KATTOOR HOUSE, KELOTH, PAYYANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN. RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 300 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of January, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 384 r/w. 511 I.P.C. The counsel submits that that is the only non-bailable offence alleged. The application of the petitioner for regular bail was dismissed by the learned Magistrate. 2. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the order rejecting the application for regular bail. Instead of going before the Sessions Court or this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and instead of going before the Sessions Court or this Court in revision (assuming that such a revision is maintainable) the petitioner has chosen to come to this court with this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. complaining about the course followed by the learned Magistrate in rejecting the application for regular bail. 3. I am afraid, the attempt cannot be permitted or encouraged. When a Magistrate rejects the application for bail Crl.M.C.No. 300 of 2009 2 under Section 437 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has the option to go before the Court of Sessions or the Bench of this Court dealing with bail applications. At any rate, I find absolutely no justification in the prayer that the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked pointing out the alleged impropriety in the manner in which the application for bail was dismissed. 4. There must be order and discipline in the proceedings. Propriety demands that this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in which virtually what is complained of is denial of bail to the petitioner cannot be entertained by this court and the petitioner has to be relegated to seek his remedy before appropriate court. 5. Powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. have been described to be 'awesome' and sweeping. In an appropriate case, notwithstanding the availability of efficacious alternative remedy, this court may in the interests of justice be persuaded to invoke such extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction. But normally and ordinarily a person who has other efficacious remedy available to him under the ordinary provisions of the Code cannot be permitted to usurp of such other jurisdiction and Crl.M.C.No. 300 of 2009 3 request this court to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed, but with the specific observation that the dismissal of this petition will not fetter the rights of the petitioner to claim regular bail from appropriate forum. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his option to move the same Magistrate also now may be kept open so that he can attempt to satisfy the learned Magistrate that he is now entitled for bail and the reasons shown earlier for refusal for grant of bail are not fully correct or sustainable now. Needless to say, the option of the petitioner to approach the same court which rejected the bail application earlier on the ground of passage of time or any other relevant ground shall remain unfettered by the dismissal of this petition. (R. BASANT) Judge tm