IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4323 of 2008() ------------------------- CRIME NO.281/08 OF KARAMANA POLICE STATION PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- ROHITH J. S/O.RAJENDRAN, 34 YEARS, GRA 246,KOTTARA LANE, GOWREESHAPATTOM, PATTOM P.O. THIUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. DR.EAPEN THOMAS, S/O.P.E.THOMAS, ST.JUDE HOSPITAL, KILLIPPALLAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4323 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of November 2008 O R D E R The petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered alleging the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. The crime in turn has been registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the complainant which was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Investigation is in progress. At the Bar it is fairly conceded that an application for anticipatory bail has already been filed before the bail Bench of this court and the same has been dismissed. The petitioner has not challenged that order. He has not appeared before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate. Instead, he has come before this court again with a prayer that invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C the F.I.R registered against him may be quashed. There can be no dispute on the proposition that in an appropriate case, the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked to quash the F.I.R in the interests of justice. It is unnecessary to advert to the legal principles which ought to be followed while considering the prayer for quashing of such F.I.R. The principle Crl.M.C.No.4323/08 2 appear to be well settled. The crux of the allegations is that the petitioner had fraudulently induced the de facto complainant to part with money by making false representations that he shall secure a seat for a professional course for the son of the de facto complainant. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner first of all contended that there is acrimony between parties. The petitioner had earlier filed a complaint against the de facto complainant alleging that he has committed offences against the petitioner. A crime was registered. The present attempt is only to retaliate the petitioner by initiating the present proceedings. 3. Secondly it is contended that even the alleged purpose for which the de facto complainant was allegedly induced to part with money is culpable and therefore if the allegation against the de facto complainant were accepted it amounts to permitting an accomplice to proceed against another. This is unjustified and cannot be accepted, it is urged. 4. Thirdly it is contended that even if the allegations were accepted in toto, the ingredients of the offence under Section 420 I.P.C are not revealed. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even going by the admitted version of Crl.M.C.No.4323/08 3 the de facto complainant in the complaint, the petitioner had allegedly secured for the son of the de facto complainant a hall ticket to enable him to appear for the entrance test. 5. At this early stage of the proceedings, it is unnecessary and impermissible for this court to attempt to render any authentic findings on the disputed questions of fact. On the available inputs, it does not appear to be possible to render any such authentic findings. Suffice it to say that I have anxiously applied my mind to the controversies raised between the contestants and I find no reasons to quash the F.I.R registered under Section 420 I.P.C. 6. The contention that the allegations, even if accepted, does not amount to an offence under Section 420 I.P.C, does not find favour with me at this stage. I am not persuaded to feel that the allegations if accepted would not constitute any offence at all. 7. I may hasten to observe that I have not decided to render final and authentic findings on any of the disputed questions. I have adverted to facts only to satisfy myself that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C do not deserve to be invoked. I make it clear that the observation made should not fetter the Crl.M.C.No.4323/08 4 jurisdiction of the court below at appropriate stage as to come to appropriate conclusion. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that there may be a direction that the application for bail to be filed by the petitioner after his surrender before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate may be considered on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. Sufficient general directions have already been issued in Alice George vs.Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1)KLT 339]. It is not necessary for this court in every subsequent case to issue directions to the Magistracy to follow the dictum in Alice George (Supra). Every court is bound to do the same. I have no reason to assume that the same shall not be done. If the directions are not complied with, the avenues of challenge/complaint shall be available for the petitioner. 10. In the result, this petition is dismissed subject to the above specific observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.4323/08 5 Crl.M.C.No.4323/08 6 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008