IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2009 / 24TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 193 of 2009() ------------------------ CC.325/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, MANJERI CRIME NO.33/07 OF KARUVARAKUNDU POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED --------------- RAJAN @ MANIKANDA RAJAN, THALASSEERIYAN HOUSE, VELLILA, CAMPINKUNNU, KARUVARAKUNDU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR SRI.K.RAKESH RESPONDENT(S): STATE --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARUVARAKUNDU POLICE STATION - THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.193 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January, 2009 ORDER Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 406 I.P.C. Cognizance was taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police. Cognizance was taken as early as in September, 2007 and charges have been framed under Section 240 Cr.P.C against the petitioner on 29.09.07. The petitioner had not challenged the cognizance or the framing of charges. Now the matter is listed for trial. At this juncture, the petitioner has rushed to this Court with a prayer to quash the cognizance taken against him invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I find absolutely no circumstances warranting the invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner who has not challenged the cognizance taken by the court or the framing of charges long back has now chosen to come to this Court on the eve of trial. Obviously, the conclusion appears to be irresistible that the attempt is only to drag on the Crl.M.C. No.193 of 2009 2 proceedings. I am not embarking on a detailed discussion on the relevant contention now. I am satisfied that this Crl.M.C can be dismissed with the specific observation that the petitioner can raise all the relevant contentions before the learned Magistrate. This Crl.M.C is accordingly dismissed, but with the above specific observation. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-