IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2009 / 23RD ASWINA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2558 of 2009 --------------------------------------- CC.40/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER: K.P.PAVITHRAN, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, VALIYAVALAPPIL HOUSE, VALIYANNOOR, P.O.VARAM, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.PANKAJAKSHAN RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, KANNUR, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2558 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.40/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Kannur, taken cognizance for the offence under Section 224 of Indian Penal Code upon Annexure-III final report. Prosecution case is that on 19.11.2008 at about 3.30 p.m., in front of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kannur, on the entrance to the public road, when Sub Inspector of Police, Sundarapandinagar Angadi Police Station sought to arrest the petitioner, he resisted the arrest and refused to subject himself to arrest and thereby committed the offence under Section 224 of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the cognizance taken as well as the final report contending that ingredients of an offence is not attracted and continuation of the proceedings is CRMC 2558/09 2 only an abuse of process of the court and charge witnesses 1 to 3 are all police officials from Tamil Nadu and in such circumstances, the case is to be quashed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that unless there is a specific case that petitioner either intentionally offered any resistance or caused illegal obstruction to the arrest, an offence is not attracted and the final report does not disclose the necessary ingredients of the offence and therefore, it is to be quashed. Learned counsel also argued that CWs 1 to 3, who are to be examined, are from Tamil Nadu and there is no likelihood of those witnesses being examined and petitioner has now obtained a visa and pendency of this proceedings would cause impediment to his getting employment and as there is no likelihood of disposing the case expeditiously, the case is to be CRMC 2558/09 3 quashed. 4. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the evidence and other materials produced, I do not find this a fit case, where the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure is to be invoked to terminate the proceedings as sought for. Petitioner is entitled to raise all the contentions raised herein before the learned Magistrate. Petitioner is also at liberty to seek an order of discharge under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure, if charge is not so far framed. Petitioner is also entitled to approach the Magistrate for an early disposal of the case. If such a request is made, Magistrate to dispose the case expeditiously. Petition is disposed. 15th October, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv