IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2009 / 2ND MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 327 of 2009() ------------------------------------- CRIME NO.642/2008 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION. ....... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1 TO 6 ---------------------- 1. MANI @ KARIMANI,AGED 32 YEARS,S/O. RAMAN, PUTHIYAKANDAM, MAVUNGAL, P.O.ANANDASHRAM, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 2. SUJI K,AGED 21 YEARS,S/O.KANNAN, PUTHIYAKANDAM, MAVUNGAL P.O.ANANDASHRAM, HOSDURG TALUK,KASARGOD DISTRICT. 3. PURUSHU @ PURUSHOTHAMAN AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.GANAPATHY,PUTHIYAKANDAM, MAVUNGAL,P.O. ANANDASHRAM, HOSDURG TALUK,KASARGOD. 4. MANOJKUMAR, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.KUMARAN, MOOLAKANDAM P.O. ANANDASHRAM, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 5. SHAJI P.P.AGED 27 YEARS,S/O.NARAYANAN, MOOLAKANDAM VIA, ANANDASRAMAM. 6. PRAKASHAN AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVI, PUTHIYAKANDAM, MAVUNGAL P.O. ANANDASHRAM, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT & STATE --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, HOSDURG POLICE STATION REPRESENTED THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 327 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2009 O R D E R The petitioners face allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 3(1)(xv) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In the course of investigation such allegation has been withdrawn and a fresh allegation is raised under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The petitioners, at this juncture, have come to this Court with a prayer that the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash the crime registered against them. The crux of the contention is that there is no worthwhile allegation attracting the play of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. At this early stage, I shall not embark on any detailed discussion as to whether the complicity of the petitioners is established. Suffice it to say at the moment that I am unable Crl.M.C.No. 327 of 2009 2 to accept the contention that the allegations do not justify continuance of the investigation for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. I am in these circumstances not persuaded to agree that the investigation deserves to be impeded by order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are facing a very difficult situation. According to them the allegations are false and are raised with vexatious intent. They are unable to seek anticipatory bail in view of Section 18 of the Act. They apprehend that the offence under Section 3(1)(x) being triable exclusively by a Special Sessions Court under Section 14 of the Act, the learned Magistrate may not consider their application to be filed on their surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate under Section 437 Cr.P.C. on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. It is hence prayed that directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be issued in favour of the petitioners. 4. The mere fact that an offence under SC/ST Act is triable by a Court of Sessions will not justify abdication of jurisdiction by the learned Magistrates under Section 437 Cr.P.C. The decisions in Ali v. State of Kerala (2000 (2) KLT 280), Shanu v. State of Kerala Crl.M.C.No. 327 of 2009 3 (2000 (3) KLT 452), Krishnakumar v. State of Kerala (2005 (1) KLD (Cri) 42) and P.P. Kader v. State of Kerala (2005 (1) KLD (Cri) 250) make the position very clear. It is for the petitioners now to appear before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider the applications to be filed by them 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). 5. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed, but with the specific observation that if the petitioners appear before the learned Magistrate and apply for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. (R. BASANT) Judge tm