IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2887 of 2005() ------------------------- CP.50/2004 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, CHANGANACHERRY .................... PETITIONERS: ACCUSED: ---------------------------- 1. RAJAN VARGHESE, S/O. VARGHESE, AGED 50 YEARS, CHAIRMAN/MANAGER, MAR GREGORIOUS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING COLLEGE, NATAKAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. NIRMALA RAJAN, W/O.RAJAN VARGHESE, AGED 47 YEARS, R/O. PANAYAKKAMATTATHIL HOUSE, PAKKIL KARA, AAKAVALAVU BHAGAM, NATTAKAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.TOM K.THOMAS RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 031. 2. RADHA DIVAKARAN, W/O. DIVAKARAN, R/O. AMBATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PULIYANAM KARA & P.O. ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. D. MAHESH, S/O. DIVAKARAN, R/O. AMBATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PULIYANAM KARA & P.O. ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI AMJAD ALI FOR R1 ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ FOR R2 & R3 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.11059/05 IN CRL.M.C.NO.2887/05 //DISMISSED// 11.12.2008 SD/-M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, J. ----------------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.No.2887 OF 2005 A ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008 O R D E R This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash Annexure B complaint and Annexure C charge sheet in C.P.No.50/04 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Changanassery. The facts of the case stated in the petition are as follows: 2. The petitioners are husband and wife and are accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively in C.P.No.50/04 pending on the file of J.F.C.M., Changanassery. The first petitioner is the Chairman/Manager of Mar Gregorious Engineering College, Kottayam. The 3rd respondent was a student of that College and the second respondent is his mother. Some of the students in that College filed W.P.(C)Nos.19864/03 and 20101/03 before this Court, seeking to transfer them to other institutions for want of affiliation by the M.G.University. Annexure A is the copy of the judgment. Respondents 2 and 3 herein filed a false complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police, Chingavanam against the CRL.M.C.No.2887/05 -2- petitioners herein alleging offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act. Copy of that complaint dated 18.6.2003 is produced as Annexure B. Annexure C charge sheet has filed, after investigation, before the Court of JFCM, Changanassery, which according to the petitioners was to wreak vengeance against them. Therefore, the charge sheet Annexure C is liable to be quashed, it is submitted. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and respondents 2 and 3. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that petitioners are husband and wife, arrayed as accused 1 and 2 respectively in C.P.No.50/04 before the Court of JFCM, Changanassery. Annexure C is the copy of the charge sheet filed against them, wherein offence alleged against the petitioners are under sections 506(i) and 341 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the SCST(PA)Act. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the second petitioner is a house-wife and arrayed as an accused without any reason and solely to wreak vengeance against petitioners 1 and 2, as the first petitioner is the Principal of Mar Gregorious College. Some arrears of mess fee was due from the 3rd CRL.M.C.No.2887/05 -3- respondent to the College, which was not paid by him, and for that reason his certificates were not returned to him. Subsequently, those certificates were returned and the 3rd respondent has joined in another College and continued his studies. It is also submitted that no incident as alleged in the complaint, Annexure B has taken place and the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC ST (PA) Act is not attracted. 5. The prayer in this petition is opposed by the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 and submitted that sufficient ingredients to attract the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCST (PA)Act are there in the complaint filed by respondents 2 and 3 as complainants before the Sub Inspector of Police, Chingavanam, copy of which is produced as Annexure B. The same submission has been made by the learned Public Prosecutor also. 6. In the present case, the police authorities have investigated the case on the basis of the complaint filed by respondents 2 and 3, copy of which is produced as Annexure A and the charge sheet was laid before the competent court, copy of which is marked as Annexure C. Whether prima facie case is there to attract the provisions of Section 3 (1)(x) of the SCST(PA) Act against petitioners 1 and 2 and whether the case is to be committed to the Special Court are yet to be decided by CRL.M.C.No.2887/05 -4- the learned Magistrate. Those are all matters to be decided by taking evidence or statement of the witnesses concerned in appropriate stage. This Court cannot jump to a conclusion at present, before considering the evidence that the said offence has not been committed by the petitioners as prayed for in this petition. This Court cannot give a prima facie decision. Annexure C charge sheet is filed before the learned Magistrate on 28.5.2004 and this petition is seen filed on 6.9.2005. Thereafter, interim stay has been granted by this Court. The scope of exercise of power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Magistrate has already taken cognizance of the offence and initiated proceedings against the petitioners herein. The allegations made against the complainants cannot be the basis for quashing the proceedings. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that there are no sufficient grounds to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court envisaged under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. There is no merit in this petition and it is liable to be dismissed. I do so. In the result, the Crl.M.C. is dismissed. The petitioners are at liberty to file a petition for exemption before the learned Magistrate CRL.M.C.No.2887/05 -5- unless their appearance in person before the court is absolutely necessary in appropriate stage. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn