IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 27TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1850 of 2008() ------------------------- CRRP.42/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE C.C.599/06 OF SEPCIAL J.F.C.M. (MARAD CASES), KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER: ------------ 1. HERBERT T.JERRALD, AGED 74 YEARS, S/O.THIMOTHY, SULOJ, Y.M.C.A.A, CROSS ROAD, KOZHIKODE-1. 2. PHILOMINA.T.JERRALD,AGED 72 YEARS, W/O.HERBERT T.JERRALD,SULOJ, Y.M.C.A.A, CROSS ROAD, KOZHIKODE-1. 3. SHERRY, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.HERBERT, SUCHITHAN, NEAR WATER TANK, PUTHIYARA,KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL THOMAS(T) SMT.K.V.RESHMI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SI OF POLICE, NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 3. JOSEY.M.J., AGED 31 YEARS, D/O.M.K.JOSE, E-S, SUGANTHI LAYOUT, THENDRAL NAGAR, VEERAKERALAM P.O., COIMBATORE-641 007,TAMIL NADU. R1 & 2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB R3 BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN SRI.V.R.JAIKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 1850 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of September, 2008 O R D E R The petitioners have been arrayed as additional accused 2, 3 and 4 in a prosecution under section 498A I.P.C. initiated at the instance of the third respondent. The petitioners are the father, mother and cousin of the husband of the third respondent. The third respondent had filed a private complaint alleging commission of offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 498A I.P.C. by her husband as also the petitioners herein. That complaint was forwarded by the learned Magistrate to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Crime was accordingly registered. Investigation was conducted. Final report was filed by the police after investigation. 2. In the final report the petitioners were dropped from the array of accused and it was filed only against the first accused. The third respondent does not appear to have taken any further steps thereafter. But when she was examined in court as PW1 in Crl.M.C.No. 1850 of 2008 2 the course of trial, she repeated the allegations against the petitioners, which were earlier raised by her in the complaint filed by her, i.e. the F.I. Statement. The learned Prosecutor at that stage filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to implead the petitioners as additional accused. That application was allowed by the learned Magistrate. The petitioners claim to be aggrieved by that order. They have already approached the learned Sessions Judge in revision and the learned Sessions Judge as per order dt.17.3.2008 in Crl.R.P. 42 of 2007 (Annex.II) has turned down the challenge raised by the petitioners. 3. A second revision is not obviously maintainable in view of the bar under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. and the petitioners have hence chosen to affix the label of Section 482 Cr.P.C. on this petition and presented the same to challenge the concurrent findings of the courts below. 4. At the very outset I must take note of the nature, quality and contours of jurisdiction of this Court exercising the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. What is specifically prohibited under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. is sought to be achieved by Crl.M.C.No. 1850 of 2008 3 filing this Crl.M.C. Unless exceptional and compelling reasons are there this court would not normally invoke the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to achieve what is specifically proscribed in Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. 5. I have gone through the impugned orders. I have been taken through the averments in the complaint as also the statements of PW1 in chief examination and cross examination. I shall not embark on a more detailed and exhaustive discussion about the acceptability of the allegations raised against the petitioners. Suffice it to say that I am not satisfied that the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. can or ought to be invoked in favour of the petitioners. This Crl.M.C. deserves to be dismissed. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this court may take note of the fact that petitioners 1 and 2 are persons of advanced age. It is submitted that if their personal presence were insisted on all dates of posting, it would work out hardship and inconvenience to them. Crl.M.C.No. 1850 of 2008 4 7. They can enter appearance and seek bail. After they are granted bail, their personal presence need not be insisted only if the progress of the case absolutely warrants their physical presence. Otherwise they can be permitted to be represented by their counsel. 8. With the above observations, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm