IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 12TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3340 of 2008() --------------------------------------- (C.C.157/2005 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT NO.II, THRISSUR) PETITIONERS: ACCUSED: ------------------------------------- 1. DINESH KUMAR, S/O.PARANKUTTY, VATTUKULAM HOUSE, VENKITANG VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. 2. SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O.PARANKUTTY, VATTUKULAM HOUSE, VENKITANG VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE: -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAJAMANI, S/O.SANKARAN, KARERAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PERINGOTTUKKARA P.O., MUTHEDATH DESOM, THANNYAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 3340 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2008 ORDER The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable under Secs.341 and 323 read with Sec.34 IPC. That prosecution has been initiated on the basis of a private complaint. Cognizance was taken as early as in 2005. The plea of the accused has been recorded on 8/7/08. At this stage the petitioners have come to this Court with this petition under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer that the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction may be invoked to quash the proceedings against them. 2. What is the reason? The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations are totally false and are only retaliatory and mala fides in nature. Already police had occasion to consider the allegations and they had taken a Crl.M.C. No. 3340 of 2008 -: 2 :- decision that no action deserves to be taken. The learned Magistrate has been moved subsequently with yet another private complaint and cognizance has been taken on the basis of such private complaint. 3. In response to a specific query by this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Magistrate had conducted an enquiry under Sec.202 Cr.P.C. before issuing processes to the petitioners. 4. The short ground alleged is that the allegations are false. The falsity or otherwise of the allegations is not something which can be addressed and resolved at this stage of Sec.482 Cr.P.C. I am, in these circumstances, not satisfied that the powers under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. can, ought or deserves to be invoked. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 2nd accused is not available in India and is abroad and it would cause very great hardship, inconvenience and prejudice to the petitioners if the matter were to drag in the absence of the 2nd petitioner/accused. 5. I am satisfied that this petition under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. can be disposed of with appropriate directions which shall safeguards the interests of the petitioners. The petitioners make a categoric statement that parties being intimately known to Crl.M.C. No. 3340 of 2008 -: 3 :- each other, there is no question of any dispute regarding identity. 6. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed. I may hasten to observe that if the petitioners apply under Sec.205/317 Cr.P.C. for exemption from personal appearance and for permission to appear through their counsel to represent them, such petition must be considered favourably by the learned Magistrate and the personal presence of the petitioners need not be insisted if they are represented by their counsel. Every endeavour must also be made by the learned Magistrate to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. 7. With the above observations, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge Crl.M.C. No. 3340 of 2008 -: 4 :-