IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2009 / 12TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 6 of 2009() ---------------------- CRIME NO.462/2008 OF GURUVAYOOR POLICE STATION PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- RAMAN NAMBOOTHIRI, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O VASUDEVAN NAMBOOTHIRI, KIZHIYEDATH MANA, GURUVAYOOR VILLAGE, GURUVAYOOR WEST NADA, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENT(S): STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY P.PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SHARATH, AGED 34, S/O VISWAMBARAN, KALARIKKAL HOUSE, AARTHATTU AMSOM, CHEMMANNOOR DESOM, THRISSUR. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. of 6 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner, who is said to be the Santhikaran in the Guruvayur temple, has come to this Court with a prayer to invoke the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a prosecution initiated against him. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation. The offences alleged include offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b) and 506 I.P.C. The materials placed before me are not sufficient to precisely understand whether the allegations are raised under the former or the latter part of S.506 I.P.C. 2. According to the petitioner the allegations raised against him are totally false. In any view of the matter the allegation under Section 294(b) I.P.C. cannot stand. It is further alleged that the allegation of physical restraint is only on the basis of certain words uttered and it cannot be reckoned as restraint Crl.M.C.No. of 6 2009 2 contemplated under Section 341 I.P.C. The counsel further contends that it is extremely improper that a Santhikaran, who performs the sublime duty and who is not expected to touch others, would have indulged in such conduct. 3. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction of this Court when called upon to invoke the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction. Resolution of disputed questions of fact cannot obviously be undertaken at this stage. This is not again the occasion to weigh the materials in golden scales. I shall not advert to the other contentions. Suffice it to say that the allegations, if true, cannot be said to be insufficient to constitute the allegation under Section 506 I.P.C. Even on that aspect, I do not want to express any final opinion. The counsel appears to be sound in his contention that the allegations even if accepted in toto, it is doubtful whether the charge under Section 294(b) I.P.C. would lie. 4. I am, in these circumstances, of the opinion that the petitioner must be relegated to raise his contentions before the learned Magistrate. If the allegations are raised under Section 506(ii) I.P.C. Crl.M.C.No. of 6 2009 3 certainly the plea of discharge can be raised under Section 239 Cr.P.C. If not, appropriate contentions can be raised at the stage of Section 251 r/w. 258 Cr.P.C. as explained in Kamala Rajaram v. State of Kerala (2005 (3) KLT 617). I am satisfied that it is not necessary to invoke the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction at this stage. 5. This Crl.M.C. is dismissed. But I make it clear that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to raise all appropriate and relevant contentions before the learned Magistrate to claim premature termination of the proceedings and if that be not successful acquittal at later stages. (R. BASANT) Judge tm