IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2008 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4499 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.122/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): 3RD ACCUSED -------------------------- G.VASUDEVAN NAIR, VASUDEVA VILASOM, T.C.NO.9/956, PANICKER'S LANE, SASTHAMANGALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE -------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CANTONMENT POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 4499 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of November, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment, as the third accused, in a prosecution under Section 420 I.P.C. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of the final report submitted by the police after due investigation. 2. The crux of the allegations is that the accused persons, three in number, in furtherance of their common intention had induced the victims to part with money on a fraudulent and unintended promise that jobs shall be secured and VISAs shall be furnished to them. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. The petitioner has not appeared before the learned Magistrate. Consequent to the non-appearance of the petitioner, warrant of arrest has been issued against him. The petitioner has now come before this court with a prayer that the prosecution initiated against him may be quashed invoking the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Crl.M.C.No. 4499 of 2008 2 2. What is the reason? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations against the petitioner are totally false. He has nothing to do with the first accused, who is the Proprietor of an establishment, which had indulged in objectionable and culpable activities. Though the petitioner is alleged to have shared the common intention with the first accused, the petitioner really has nothing to do with the first accused or the alleged transaction. According to the counsel, eventhough it is alleged that the petitioner is responsible for affixing the signatures in the voucher acknowledging receipt of money, in fact he is not the one who has signed the same and had nothing to do with the same. 3. I have anxiously considered the contentions. I am satisfied that this disputed question of fact cannot be resolved at this stage under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner must be relegated to claim premature termination by discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. if he feels that he is entitled for the same. Suffice it to say that I do not find any reason to invoke the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at this stage. Crl.M.C.No. 4499 of 2008 3 4. The counsel then submits that the petitioner apprehends that his application for bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. It is certainly for the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the circumstances under which he could not earlier appear before the learned Magistrate. I have no reason to assume that the learned Sessions Magistrate would not consider the application for bail to be filed by the petitioner when he surrenders before the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. Every court must do the same. No special or specific direction appears to be necessary. Sufficient general directions have already been issued by this Court in the decision in Alice George v. Dy.S.P. of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339). 4. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that if the petitioner appears before the learned Magistrate and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must Crl.M.C.No. 4499 of 2008 4 proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. (R. BASANT) Judge tm