IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 4TH ASWINA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3634 of 2008() -------------------------------------- C.C.NO.747 OF 2004 OF JFCM COURT II, PARAPPANANGADI PETITIONER: ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- SURENDRAN, S/O. MADHAVAN NAIR, ALANGAD HOUSE, KERALADEESHWARAPURAM, TANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------- 1. CHIRAKKAPARAMBIL KUMARAN, S/O. APPUKUNHAN, PANANGATOOR, TANUR. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.3634 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of September, 2008 ORDER Petitioner, who faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 420 I.P.C, cognizance in which was taken on the basis of a private complaint filed by the respondent, has come to this Court with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against him. 2. The case was taken cognizance of in 2004. Pre charge enquiry was conducted. Charge was framed. Trial proceeded. Trial is almost complete now, it is submitted. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come to this Court with this petition to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 3. Premature termination of the proceedings does not appear to be necessary in the facts and circumstances of this case, where trial has already commenced and is almost complete. I find absolutely no justification in the prayer to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction at this stage for Crl.M.C. No.3634 of 2008 2 the simple reason that the course of conduct adopted by the petitioner so far in the course of the trial does not permit or justify the invocation of such jurisdiction. He has no explanation for coming to this Court only at this belated stage. 4. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Needless to say that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to raise all appropriate and relevant contentions in the trial before the court below which is at its fag end. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner finally prays that there may be a direction for expeditious disposal. The court below must attempt expeditious disposal. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-