IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2009 / 8TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 429 of 2009() ------------------------ CC.26/2007 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIVANDRUM CRIME NO.55/06 OF THE MUSEUM POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAJI MOL, W/O. PRADEEP PUTHOOR SANKARAMANGALM PUTHOOR, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT FROM SANTHI NILAYAM , T.C. NO. 34/007 PADAYANI ROAD, VATTIYOORKAVU PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUSEUM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI.P.A. SALIM. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2009, THE COURT ON 28/01/2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 429 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of January, 2009 ORDER The petitioner faces indictment as the 3rd accused in a prosecution under Sec.498A IPC. Cognizance was taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after investigation of a crime. The crime, in turn, was registered on the basis of a complaint filed before the police and referred by the police to the learned Magistrate under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. Cognizance was taken as early as in 2007 as is revealed from the number assigned to the case i.e., C.C.No.26/07. Trial has not commenced so far. The petitioner has now come before this Court with this petition under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. 2. What is the nature of direction that the petitioner is seeking from this Court? The learned counsel prays that there may be a direction for expeditious disposal. Did the Crl.M.C. No. 429 of 2009 -: 2 :- petitioner seek such relief from the court below where any application filed for expeditious disposal of the case? The answer is evidently in the negative. No such application has been filed at all. It is for the courts concerned to arrange and schedule their work. A party who wants an early disposal of the case must definitely apply to the court concerned for an early out of turn disposal. That having not done, I find no merit in such a party running to this Court with petitions under Art.226 of the Constitution or Sec.482 Cr.P.C. 3. The petitioner does appear to have a good case to advance in support of his claim for early disposal. But the petitioner must make a request before the Magistrate concerned first. If his grievance is not redressed, I can understand his coming to this Court. But the petitioner cannot definitely expect this Court to arrange and schedule the work before all the subordinate courts. 4. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed; but with the specific observation that the petitioner can make a request to the court below by filing an appropriate application for an early and expeditious out of turn disposal of the case. The learned Magistrate must consider the same and pass appropriate orders. The grievance raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner Crl.M.C. No. 429 of 2009 -: 3 :- must be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits and appropriate orders passed. 5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner for production before the learned Magistrate along with his application for early disposal. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge