IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4267 of 2008() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/10/2008 IN CMP 3652/08 IN CC.426/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, THAMARASSERY .................... PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT:1ST ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- K.KRISHNAN, S/O.CHATHUKUTTY CHETTIYAR, KUNNUMMAL HOUSE, KARADI – THAMARASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER:COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. K.P.RAJAN, S/O.KUNHIKRISHNAN NAIR, THINKLAPOYIL HOUSE, THAMARASSERY P.O., RAROTH AMSOM DESOM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.4267 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of November, 2008 ORDER Petitioner is the 1st accused in a prosecution under Section 420 I.P.C. The petitioner points out to the Court the sequence of events in the case and the indulgence which has been shown to the complainant by the learned Magistrate in the matter of the conduct of the case. The complainant has been banking on the indulgence of the court and the result is that the matter drags on endlessly. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-III order, under which a belated application by the complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C to examine a witness on the side of the complainant has been allowed indulgently by the learned Magistrate subject to a direction for payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- by the complainant to the accused. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order warrants interference by invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate, it appears, felt that “evidence sought to Crl.M.C. No.4267 of 2008 2 be adduced is essential for the just and proper disposal of the case and it is not at all possible to say that the attempt of the complainant is to fill up a lacuna”. Carelessness of the complainant in conducting the prosecution has caused such a belated application to be filed, it is further noted. 3. Conscious of the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C, considering the nature of the prayer of the complainant which is allowed and the terms on which such luxury of a further opportunity has been granted to the complainant, I am of the opinion that the impugned order does not warrant interference by invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C by this Court. I need only mention that the learned Magistrate must give the complainant an opportunity to examine the witness and must ensure that the case is disposed of finally as expeditiously as possible - at any rate, within a period of 60 days from this date. Compliance shall be reported to this Court. 4. With the above observations this Crl.M.C is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-