IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4529 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.268/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, NEYYATTINKARA CRIME NO.866/04 OF NEYYATTINKARA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED --------------- NIGIL, AGED 27, S/O. B. THANKAPPAN NADAR AMALA BHAVAN R.C. STREET, KADAVATTARAM DESOM, NEYYATTINKARA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENT(S): STATE & DEFACTO COMPLANG:- ----------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. NINO ALEX, W/O. SOLOMEN, ALEX, RESIDING AT ALEX COTTAGE, VAZHUTHOOR DESOM, NEYYATTINKARA VILLAGE. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.4529 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of November, 2008 ORDER The petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Secs.341 and 323 IPC. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. The police, after taking permission of the court, conducted a further investigation and a senior police official has filed a further report also confirming the earlier offences alleged against the petitioner herein. 2. The petitioner has now come to this Court with a prayer that the powers under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. 3. What is the reason? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there has been an inordinate delay in filing the FIR. The incident took place on 4/11/04 and the Crl.M.C. No.4529 of 2008 -: 2 :- crime was registered only on 30/11/04. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that before the Doctor no allegations have been raised against any specific person of having committed the offences. The Doctor who examined the victim on 30/11/04 did not perceive any external injuries, it is further submitted. The learned counsel for the petitioner finally submits that there was absolutely no necessity to conduct a further investigation and the very fact that such further investigation has been conducted reveals the mala fide and partisan interests of the police. The learned counsel contends that, in these circumstances, the prosecution against the petitioner deserves to be quashed. According to the petitioner, the father of the de facto complainant owes allegiance to a ruling political party. It is only because of the influence which he wields with the police that such a final report has been filed and the further investigation has been conducted to confirm the conclusions in the earlier investigation. 4. I must alertly remind myself that I am called upon to invoke and exercise the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this Court under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. Resolution of complicated and disputed questions of fact cannot evidently be undertaken while exercising this jurisdiction. I need only mention that I do not find any such circumstances in this case Crl.M.C. No.4529 of 2008 -: 3 :- which can persuade this Court to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. The fact that there has been a delay in the lodging of the FIR; that no injuries were found when the injured person was examined by the Medical Officer long after the occurrence; that the name of the assailant is not mentioned to the Doctor when the victim went to the Doctor after registration of the crime along with the requisition or the fact that the de facto complainant's father is allegedly an influential politician on the proper side of political power are no circumstances which appeal to me as sufficient to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction at this stage. 5. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed. I may hasten to observe that I have not intended to express any opinion on merits and have chosen only to express my opinion that the powers under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. do not deserve to be invoked. The dismissal of this Crl.M.C. will not in any way fetter the right of the petitioner to raise all appropriate contentions in the course of trial or to claim dropping of the proceedings under Sec.258 Cr.P.C. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge Crl.M.C. No.4529 of 2008 -: 4 :-