IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2009 / 15TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 5008 of 2008() ------------------------- CRIME NO. 3010/08 OF ALUVA POLICE STATION PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- NAWAB,S/O.LATHEEF, KIZHAKKEVELIKKAKATH, KUZHUVELIPPADY, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALUVA, 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 3. PAREEKUTTY, S/O.BAVA, CHAMAKKUDY HOUSE, SOUTH VAZHAKKULAM VILLAGE,TENANT MUTHALIL, S/O.MOIDU,LALAL, NOCHIMA KARA, NOCHIMA HOUSE,ALUVA R1 & 2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 5008 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of January, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner is shown as an accused in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations is that the petitioner, along with the co-accused, approached the defacto complainant and induced him to enter into an agreement with fraudulent and malafide intention. It was allegedly represented that the transaction was for the benefit of the petitioner, but the document need be made out in the name of the second accused. Agreement was entered into between the defacto complainant and the second accused. Fraudulent act of deception were performed. It is, in these circumstances, that the private complaint was filed by the defacto complainant alleging commission of offence by both the accused in furtherance of their common intention. The complaint was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehending arrest had moved the bail Bench of this Court for anticipatory bail. Crl.M.C.No. 5008 of 2008 2 That application stands rejected. It is at that juncture that the petitioner has come before this Court with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the F.I.R. in so far as it relates to him. 2. I shall scrupulously avoid any detailed discussion about the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that I am not persuaded to agree at all that the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can or ought to be invoked to quash the F.I.R. in so far as it relates to the petitioner. It is for the petitioner now either to challenge the order refusing anticipatory bail or to appear before the learned Magistrate or the Investigating Officer and then seek regular bail. 3. This Crl.M.C. is dismissed. But I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to raise all appropriate contentions before the learned Magistrate at the stage of bail and thereafter. 4. Hand over the order. (R. BASANT) Judge tm