IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2009 / 14TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 504 of 2009() ------------------------ CRIME NO.177/05 OF KAREELAKULANGARA POLICE STATION PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. ABHILASH, S/O. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, SREESAILAM HOUSE, AZHOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. LEELA, W/O. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, SREESAILAM HOUSE, AZHOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.SEBASTIAN PHILIP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. ANANDAVALLY, W/O. RAJU, MANGATTU HOUSE, WARD II, CHEPPAD P.O., HARIPPAD. 3. KAVITHA, W/O. ANOOP, MANGATTU HOUSE, WARD II, CHEPPAD P.O., HARIPPAD. 4. SANGEETHA, D/O. ANANDAVALLY, MANGATTU HOUSE, WARD II, CHEPPAD P.O., HARIPPAD. 5. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAREELAKKULANGARA POLICE STATION. BY P.P. SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 504 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2009 ORDER The petitioners are the accused who face indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec. 506(ii) read with Sec.34 IPC. The alleged incident took place in 2005. The crime was promptly registered. Investigation was in progress. According to the petitioners, at the early stage, there was a settlement of dispute between the parties before the local police. But somehow for inexplicable reasons, the investigation has been taken over by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Detachment, Alappuzha, and final report has been filed. On the basis of the final report, cognizance has been taken in 2008. The petitioners pray that the final report may be quashed. 2. What are the reasons? The learned counsel for the Crl.M.C. No. 504 of 2009 -: 2 :- petitioners submits that the allegations are totally false and were actually settled before the police. Admittedly, the alleged victims are not now standing by the alleged settlement. The alleged settlement cannot therefore be a valid reason to quash the proceedings. The only other submission made is that the right to speedy trial under Art.21 of the Constitution is trammelled by the delay in filing the final report. I am afraid the said prayer cannot also be accepted considering the gap of time between the date of offence and the filing of the final report. I am not persuaded to agree that there has been infraction of the fundamental right to life or the derivative right derogate of life to speedy trial. In any view of the matter, I am satisfied that the criminal prosecution initiated against the petitioners does not deserve to be quashed on the ground that the right to speedy trial has been trammelled. 3. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction of this Court under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. The extraordinary inherent jurisdiction is not to be invoked as a matter of course. Satisfactory, compelling and exceptional reasons must be shown to exist. The mere contention that the allegations are false cannot persuade this Court to invoke the jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. It is impossible for this Court Crl.M.C. No. 504 of 2009 -: 3 :- to resolve such disputed questions of facts in exercise of the jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. 4. This Crl.M.C. is, in these circumstances, dismissed. I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this Crl.M.C. is solely on the ground that at this early stage under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. the disputed question of facts cannot be resolved. The dismissal of this Crl.M.C. will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioners to claim discharge under Sec.239 Cr.P.C. or to claim acquittal on any available ground at later stages. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge Crl.M.C. No. 504 of 2009 -: 4 :-