IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 10TH APRIL 2007 / 20TH CHAITHRA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 1143 of 2007() ------------------------- CRIME NO. 34/07 OF PALLICKAL POLICE STATION PETITIONER: ACCUSED -------------------- BINDU, BINDU VILASOM, THANNUR LAKSHMI VEEDU COLONY, KILIMANOOR. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, (SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALLICKAL POLICE STATION). 2. UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O. ACHUTHAN, MAYAMAYOORAM HOUSE, THENNOOR, MADAVOOR VILLAGE, PALLICKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S. BREEZ THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/04/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 1143 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of April, 2007 O R D E R The petitioner, a young woman, faces allegations raised against her by the second respondent of having committed the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The petitioner has rushed to this Court with a prayer that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash the F.I.R. registered against her as Crime No. 34 of 2007 of Pallikkal police station. 2. In a rare and exceptional case, in the interests of justice, this Court certainly has the jurisdictional competence to quash an F.I.R. by invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. But that certainly cannot be a matter of course. Exceptional reasons must be shown to exist to justify invocation of such powers. I shall carefully avoid any detailed discussion on merits about the specific allegations raised and their acceptability, lest it may adversely affect the interests of the parties. Suffice it to say that I am not persuaded to agree that this is Crl.M.C.No. 1143 of 2007 2 a fit case where the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked in favour of the petitioner. 3. At the same time, I find merit in the apprehension aired by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is a young woman having a child of six months. In view of Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the petitioner cannot claim anticipatory bail. If she surrenders before the learned Magistrate, the offence being one exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate may not consider the application for bail on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. In these circumstances the counsel prays that appropriate directions in this regard may be issued. 4. This Court has time and again repeated that the mere fact that the offence under Section 3(1)(x of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is triable by a Court of Sessions cannot justify abdication of powers by the learned Magistrate when the indictee files an application for bail. The decisions in Ali v. State of Kerala (2000 (2) KLT 280), Shanu v. State of Kerala (2000 (3) KLT 452), Krishnakumar v. State of Kerala (2005 (1) KLD (Cri) 42 and P.P. Kader v. State of Kerala (2005 (1) KLD (Cri) 250) make the position crystal clear. The apprehension of the Crl.M.C.No. 1143 of 2007 3 petitioner that the learned Magistrate may not consider the application for bail on merits does in these circumstances appear to be not justified. 5. This Crl.M.C. is hence dismissed. I may hasten to observe that if the petitioner appears before the learned Magistrate and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously - particularly in the light of the decisions referred above. 6. Hand over copy of the order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R. BASANT) Judge tm