IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2008 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4740 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.334/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, NILAMBUR .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------- R.MUKUNDAN ,S/O.RAGHVAN NAIR, RAMAYI HOUSE,PALLIKUNNU, CHUNGATHARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT/STATE: --------------- THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE EDAKKARA POLICE STATION-THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4740 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of December 2008 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable inter alia under Sections 409 and 420 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is that he, being an employee of the Postal Department, was entrusted with amounts by customers which he did not bring into the accounts of the post office and misappropriated the same. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken. The petitioner has already appeared before the learned Magistrate, it is submitted. 2. At this juncture, the petitioner has come to this court with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C praying that the prosecution against the petitioner may be quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. What is the reason? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in the departmental proceedings, the petitioner has already been exonerated. He has been reinstated in the services. The learned counsel for the petitioner Crl.M.C.No.4740/08 2 further submits that the persons who had allegedly entrusted the amounts have not supported the prosecution version in the enquiry before the disciplinary authorities. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on Annexure D. 4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I am unable to agree that the circumstances relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner has been established satisfactorily nor can those circumstances, even if established, be held to be sufficient to justify invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I shall carefully avoid detailed reference to the factual controversy. At the moment and with the available inputs, I am certainly of the opinion that there is no justification in quashing the prosecution. 5. In the result, this Crl.M.C is dismissed. But I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this Crl.M.C will not in any way prejudice the rights of the petitioner to raise all appropriate contentions before the learned Magistrate and claim acquittal. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Crl.M.C.No.4740/08 3 Crl.M.C.No.4740/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008