IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2008 / 9TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2439 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.137/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT - I, IDUKKI CRIME NO.137/08 OF THE JFCM COURT, IDUKKI. .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- 1. THANKACHAN, S/O.LUKA, POONTHURUTHIYIL HOUSE, VAZHATHOPE KARA, PALLITHAZHE BHAGAM, IDUKKI VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. LUSAMMA, W/O.THANKACHAN, POONTHURUTHIYIL HOUSE, VAZHATHOPE KARA, PALLITHAZHE BHAGAM, IDUKKI VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.K.MURALEEDHARA KAIMAL SRI.A.K.MADHAVAN UNNI RESPONDENTS: STATE & COMPLAINANT -------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THOMAS, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 43 YEARS, PULIKKUNNEL HOUSE, IDUKKI VILLAGE, THADIYAPAD P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY P.P. SRI. JAI GEORGE. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.2439 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of June, 2008 ORDER The petitioners have come to this Court with this petition under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer that the F.I.R. registered as Crime No.158/08 of the Idukki Police Station under Sec.379 of the IPC may be quashed. According to the petitioners, they have a dispute with the neighbour about the attempt of the neighbour to draw pipe line through their property. The petitioners have resisted the attempt of such neighhour to draw pipe line through their property without their consent. The said neighbour – R2 herein, is ill-disposed to the petitioners on that score. He has now embarked on an attempt to vex and harass the petitioners by filing unjustified criminal complaints against them before the police. The police appear to be obliging the 2nd respondent and they have already Crl.M.C. No.2439 of 2008 -: 2 :- registered a crime and have filed a final report alleging the commission of the offence punishable, inter alia, under Secs.294 (b) and 506(ii) of the IPC. Annexure-2 is a copy of the final report filed. 2. Not satisfied with the vexation meted out to the petitioners by filing Annexure-2 final report, a civil suit has also been filed. Now an attempt is being made to make heinous allegations of theft against the 1st petitioner. It is alleged that a motor pump which was installed near the well has been stealthily removed by the 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner is not aware of an incident like that. According to him, no such theft at all had taken place. The allegations are being raised vexatiously by the 2nd respondent. The police are only obliging the 2nd respondent in his attempt to vex and harass the petitioners. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the proceedings may be quashed. 3. It is fairly reported to this Court by the counsel for the petitioners that the 1st petitioner had applied before another Bench of this Court for anticipatory bail and the said prayer for anticipatory bail has been rejected by the learned Judge. It is Crl.M.C. No.2439 of 2008 -: 3 :- after the rejection of the prayer for anticipatory bail that the petitioners have now come before this Court. 4. The petitioners' claim for anticipatory bail having been dismissed by the learned Judge, the petitioners have now chosen to seek quashing of the FIR itself. At the moment and with the available inputs it is hazardous for this Court to come to the conclusion that the 2nd respondent has not suffered any loss at all. Investigation deserves to be conducted. I am of opinion that there is absolutely no circumstance which can justify or warrant the invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR and thereby stultify the investigation which has already commenced. 5. It is for the petitioners now either to challenge the order rejecting the anticipatory bail or to appear before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail in the ordinary and usual course. I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider the petitioners' applications for regular bail on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. No special or specific directions appear to be necessary in the facts and circumstances of this Crl.M.C. No.2439 of 2008 -: 4 :- case. Every court must do the same. Sufficient general directions on this aspect have already been issued in the decision reported in Alice George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339). 6. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed; but with the above observations. 7. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioners. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge