IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2009 / 30TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 283 of 2009() ------------------------ CRIME NO.1197/08 OF TIRUR POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER: --------------- T. ABDUL MAJEED @ MAJEED KURIKKAL AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. HAMZA KURIKKAL THEKKATH HOUSE, NADUVATH NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER TIRUR POLICE STATION (CRIME nO.1197/2008) TIRUR, MALAPPURAM, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 283 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of January, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered at the Thirur police station. Investigation into that crime is now being conducted alleging offences punishable under Sections 420, 274, 275 and 276 r/w. 34 I.P.C. The F.I.R. was registered suo moto by the police officer after effecting arrest under Section 41 Cr.P.C. The first accused was found present in a room in the lodge meddling with bottles of drugs. He was allegedly found to be dealing with such articles under suspicious circumstance. Indications were gathered to suggest that the petitioner had nexus with the allegedly/suspected culpable activity which was going on there. The first accused was arrested. The petitioner was shown as the second accused in the F.I.R. 2. In the course of the investigation, apprehending arrest, the petitioner had moved the learned Sessions Judge for anticipatory bail and as per order dt.28.11.2008 anticipatory bail Crl.M.C.No. 283 of 2009 2 has been granted to him, subject to conditions. The petitioner now prays that the F.I.R. registered in so far as it relates to him may be quashed. He does not deserve to stand the investigation, urges the counsel. 3. The petitioner has already been granted anticipatory bail. The first accused was found to be dealing with (empty?) bottles of drugs. On the reasonable apprehension that the first accused was acting under suspicious circumstances arrest was effected and the F.I.R. was registered. It is in the course of investigation that allegations under Sections 420, 274, 275 and 276 r/w. 34 I.P.C. were raised specifically against the petitioner and the first accused. Investigation is in progress. Final report has not been filed. 4. The prayer is to quash the crime registered invoking the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Such jurisdiction is not to be invoked as a matter of course. Compelling and exceptional reasons must be shown to exist to justify invocation of such jurisdiction. Undoubtedly the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. clothes this court with powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to Crl.M.C.No. 283 of 2009 3 quash an investigation which has already commenced. But satisfactory, compelling and sufficient reasons must be shown to exist to persuade this court to resort to such extra ordinary jurisdiction. In the instant case, at any rate, an unexplained suspicious conduct of the first accused was detected and indications were collected about the involvement of the petitioner in such activity, whatever it be. 5. The petitioner has already been granted anticipatory bail and he is not put to any undeserved hardship or inconvenience by the continuance of the investigation. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that it is not at all necessary to invoke the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to interfere with the investigation and stop such investigation which is being conducted. Interests of justice do not warrant resort to such a course. The police officer must investigate and find out whether there is any culpable activity undertaken by the petitioner. Prima facie the suspicion is absolutely justified. I am not satisfied that the F.I.R. deserves to be quashed. Crl.M.C.No. 283 of 2009 4 6. This Crl.M.C. is hence dismissed. I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to challenge the final report filed in appropriate proceedings or to claim acquittal on any valid ground at later stages. (R. BASANT) Judge tm