IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2008 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2161 of 2008() ------------------------- .................... PETITIONER: 1ST ACCUSED ----------------------- SATHEESH KUMAR, POTHANGANATHU VEEDU, MADAMON MURI, PERUNAD VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT/STATE ------------------------------ 1. S.I.OF POLICE, PERUNAD POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI.JAI GEORGE. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 2161 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2008 ORDER This application is to quash an FIR. The FIR has been registered after the alleged recovery of the contraband articles from an autorikshaw. The crux of the allegations is that 3 persons were transporting the contraband articles offending the provisions of the Kerala Abkari Act in the autorikshaw. The autorikshaw belongs to the wife of the petitioner. In the seizure mahazar, the details are given. It is recorded in the seizure mahazar clearly that 3 accused persons ran away abandoning the autorikshaw and it was ascertained that they were the petitioner herein and two other named individuals. According to the petitioner, this case, though available in the mahazar and though extracted in the FIR, is not correct and the petitioner had nothing to do with the transportation of the Crl.M.C. No. 2161 of 2008 -: 2 :- contraband articles. The petitioner's wife had entrusted the vehicle to some other persons and they may have made use of the vehicle. In any event the petitioner can have no culpable responsibility for the transportation of the contraband articles in the vehicle. 2. I must alertly note that I am called upon to invoke and exercise the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. At the moment and with the available evidence, it is impossible for any prudent person to come to any authentic conclusion as to whether the petitioner was the one available in the autorikshaw as the driver at the relevant time. The matter certainly deserves to be investigated. In any view of the matter, there is absolutely no warrant to invoke the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. to prematurely terminate the investigation into the crime registered by the police. This petition is totally misconceived and therefore the prayer cannot be accepted. 3. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge Crl.M.C. No. 2161 of 2008 -: 3 :-