IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2008 / 21ST ASWINA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3781 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.496/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- 1. R.RAJESH VARMA, S/O.BHANUMATHI THAMPURATTI, BALAN NAMBIAR, WESTERN KOVILAKAM, CHIRAKKAL AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. R.MAHESH VARMA, S/O.BHANUMATHI THAMPURATTI, BALAN NAMBIAR, WESTERN KOVILAKAM, CHIRAKKAL AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH RESPONDENT(S): STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, KERALA HIGH COURT,ERNAKULAM. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VALAPATTANAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR. 3. T.KERALA VARMA, S/O.A.M.NEELAKANDAN NAMBOOTIRI CHIRAKKAL AMSOM DESOM, WESTERN KOVILAKAM, KANNUR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3781 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of October 2008 O R D E R The petitioners, who face indictment for offences punishable inter alia under Sections 448 and 427 in a prosecution launched as early as in 2003 (as can be seen from the number of the case i.e. C.C No.496/2003) before the learned J.F.C.M-II, Kannur have come to this court with a prayer that the prosecution initiated against them may be quashed invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. Though copy of the order is not produced before this court along with the Crl.M.C, the learned counsel for the petitioners, as requested by the court, has placed before this court copy of the order dated 17/3/2006 in Crl.M.C.No.4992/2003. The petitioners had earlier come to this court with an identical prayer that C.C.No.496/2003 launched against them may be quashed invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The crux of the contentions is that the dispute is essentially and basically civil in nature and the criminal adjudicatory process is being invoked without bona Crl.M.C.No.3781/08 2 fides. Another Bench of this court, as per the order dated 17/3/2006 dismissed the same and wanted the petitioners to raise all relevant contentions before the learned Magistrate. 3. Though that order was passed on 17/3/2006, the petitioners have not appeared before the learned Magistrate so far. Now, on receipt of process from the court, they have again come to this court with the renewed prayer for invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Of course a slightly different ground is also urged. It is contended that there has been unjustified resort to the powers under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C by the investigating officer . 4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I must alertly remind myself that I am called upon to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C by a party who has already suffered an order dated 17/3/2006 when an identical prayer but on slightly different grounds was unsuccessfully raised earlier. The petitioners I note have not so far appeared before the learned Magistrate. 5. I do not intend to express any opinion on merits; but I am perfectly satisfied that the petitioners have not made out a Crl.M.C.No.3781/08 3 case for invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. They must appear before the learned Magistrate and claim premature termination of proceedings by resort to the provisions of Section 258 Cr.P.C as explained in the decision in Kamala Rajaram v. State of Kerala [2005(3) KLT 617]. The learned Magistrate, Needless to say, must consider such plea for premature termination by stoppage of proceedings under Section 258 Cr.P.C. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners may be exempted from personal appearance. It is for the petitioners to enter appearance and thereafter seek exemption from personal appearance. Such application must be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits and in accordance with law. 7. With the above observations, this petition is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.3781/08 4 Crl.M.C.No.3781/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008