IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2008 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1426 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.278/2002 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONERS: -------------- 1. SANANDAM, S/O. YESUVADIYAN PUTHUKUNNU PUTHEN VEETTIL MELULLIYAZHATHURA MURI, ULIYAZHUTHURAYIL VILLGE. 2. SUNEESH KUMAR,S/O. SANANDAM PUTHUKUNNU PUTHEN VEETTIL MELULLIYAZHATHURA MURI, ULIYAZHUTHURAYIL VILLGE. 3. SATHEESH KUMAR,S/O. SANANDAM PUTHUKUNNU PUTHEN VEETTIL MELULLIYAZHATHURA MURI, ULIYAZHUTHURAYIL VILLGE. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN SRI.D.SAJEEV SRI.K.R.HARIDAS RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE KAZHAKUTTAM POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. SREEKALASAM W/O. SAM PUTHUKUNNU POUTHEN VEETTIL MELULIYAZHATHURA MURI ULIYAZHUTHURAYIL VILLAGE. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 1426 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June, 2008 O R D E R Petitioners are accused in a prosecution initiated as early as in 2002 alleging offences punishable inter alia under Section 324 IPC. Cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate on the basis of a final report submitted by the police, after due investigation. Petitioners have entered appearance in that case before the learned Magistrate and they have now, in 2008, come before this Court with a prayer to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C to bring the prosecution to premature termination. 2. What is the ground? Why did the petitioners wait from 2002 to 2008 to make this prayer for quashing that proceedings? For these queries they have no satisfactory reply. Counsel for the petitioners contends that in 1996 a complaint was filed by the same complainant, a crime was registered, investigation was conducted, final report was filed and cognizance was taken and trial was conducted. Petitioners were found guilty and convicted. They were sentenced by the trial court. They filed appeal, but the Crl.M.C. No. 1426 OF 2008 2 sentence and conviction were upheld by the superior court also. How does that make out a cure for quashing of the present proceedings? According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the allegations raised in that earlier crime and the present crime are identical, though they relate to two different incidents separated by a period of about 6 years. On account of animosity, such false allegations are being repeated. 3. I find absolutely no merit in this contention. The principles of double jeopardy do not arise at all. The allegations in the present final report clearly reveal the alleged offences. I find no merit whatsoever in the prayer to quash the proceedings on that ground. 4. It is also contended that even the defacto complainant is aggrieved by the investigation. She has raised complaints before the Magistrate. In these circumstances, no useful purpose is likely to be served by continuance of the prosecution, it is submitted. I find no merit in this contention also. If either the petitioners or the defacto complainant is aggrieved by the investigation conducted, I would have expected them to make appropriate applications for Crl.M.C. No. 1426 OF 2008 3 the conduct of further investigation. Admittedly, they have not done so. The mere fact that the victim/defacto complainant is also aggrieved by the investigation is not a reason whatsoever to quash the proceedings. 5. Why did the petitioners wait from 2002 to 2008 to file this petition? No satisfactory answers are forthcoming on that aspect also. Suffice to say that on an anxious consideration all the relevant inputs, I am not persuaded to invoke powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C in favour of the petitioners to quash the prosecution proceedings, which has been launched as early as in 2002 against the petitioners. 6. This Crl. M.C. is, in these circumstances, dismissed. R. BASANT, JUDGE ttb Crl.M.C. No. 1426 OF 2008 4 Crl.M.C. No. 1426 OF 2008 5