IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2008 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1919 of 2008() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC.108/1986 IN LPC.12/1987 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED NO.1 ------------ M.M.ANANDAN NAMBIAR,S/O.KRISHNAN NAMBIAR,68 YEARS,RESIDING NEAR PAYANGADI RAILWAY STATION,PAYANGADI P.O,KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA (CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,CRIME DETACHEMNT, KANNUR CRIME NO.146/1985 OF VALAPATTANAM POLICE STATION)REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.1919 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2008 ORDER Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 420 I.P.C. Crime was registered as early as in 1986. Final report was filed after due investigation and the case was taken on file as C.C.108 of 1986. But as the petitioner was not available for trial, the case against him was transferred to the list of Long Pending Cases. The petitioner has not appeared before the learned Magistrate so far. Coercive processes issued by the learned Magistrate are chasing the petitioner now. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. It is at this juncture that the petitioner has come to this Court. He airs the apprehension that if arrested he may not be enlarged on bail. He further submits that the allegations against him are totally unjustified and cannot at any rate justify an indictment under Section 420 I.P.C. 3. The crux of the allegations is that the defacto complainant was induced to part with money on the false promise Crl.M.C. No.1919 of 2008 2 that employment shall be provided for his brother. The defacto complainant's brother was taken to the foreign country. But after keeping him there for some time, he was sent back to India stating that employment could not be arranged. The money was not returned. It is, in these circumstances, that allegations under Section 420 I.P.C are raised against the petitioner. Though the records show that there was a co-accused also, the learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to explain what has happened to the proceedings against the co-accused. 4. Be that as it may, I find absolutely no justification in the request made by the petitioner at this belated hour to invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against him. It cannot for a moment be assumed that the allegations raised which I have referred above, cannot, under any circumstances, constitute the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. It is for the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail now. Before the learned Magistrate, the petitioner can raise the plea that he is entitled to be discharged and if he does not succeed on that stage, he can later raise the Crl.M.C. No.1919 of 2008 3 plea that he is entitled for an acquittal. At any rate, I am satisfied that at the moment and with the available inputs there is no justification or warrant for invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This petition accordingly only deserves to be dismissed. 5. This Crl.M.C is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that if the petitioner appears before the learned Magistrate and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-