IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2008 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4826 of 2008() ----------------------------------- CRIME NO.1346/2008 OF THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION ...... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- BIPIN THANKKAPPAN, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.THANKKAPPAN, MIMBILLIL HOUSE, VETTIKATTUMUKKU THALAYOLAPARAMBU. BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION, IDUKKI. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.4826 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of December, 2008 ORDER Petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 376 I.P.C. Crime has been registered on the basis of a private complaint filed before the learned Magistrate and referred to the police by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner had approached the bail Bench of this Court for anticipatory bail. That application for anticipatory bail was rejected by a detailed order. The petitioner has not challenged the said order nor has he chosen to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate as observed in the order rejecting the application for anticipatory bail. He has now come to this Court with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. What is the nature of direction that the petitioner seeks in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C ? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations are inherently improbable and unacceptable and that compelling the petitioner to face a criminal investigation on the basis of such allegations would be abuse of the criminal adjudicatory Crl.M.C. No.4826 of 2008 2 processes. It is, in these circumstances, prayed that the F.I.R may be quashed. 3. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction of this Court when called upon to invoke and exercise the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. At the present moment and with the available inputs, a decision as to whether the allegations are true and acceptable cannot obviously be taken by this Court. I shall avoid any detailed reference to the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that I am not persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner and invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction on the plea that the allegations are so grossly unacceptable and improbable and the petitioner does not deserve to stand the trauma of even investigation. 4. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. I may hasten to observe that I have not intended to express any opinion on the acceptability of the allegations. I have chosen only to say that the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction does not deserve to be invoked. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-