IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4422 of 2008() ------------------------- Cr.NO.260/08 OF PERAVOOR POLICE STATION PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED --------------- 1. K.RAGHAVAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, BILL COLLECTOR, DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KOLAYAD, KOMMERI. 2. P.HARIDASAN, S/O.KUMARA, AGRICULTURIST, KOLAYAD, KOMMERI. 3. P.MOHANDAS, S/O.ACHUTHAN, AGRICULTURIST, DO. 4. P.RAJAN, S/O.ACHUTHAN, BUS CLEANER, DO. 5. VACHALI PREMAN, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, KOMMERI DESOM, KOLAYAD AMSOM. 6. THENIYADAN VINODAN, S/O.VIJAYAN, RESIDING DO. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE --------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERAVOOR POLICE STATION. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.4422 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of November, 2008 ORDER Petitioners face allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 353 r/w 149 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations is that the petitioners caused illegal obstruction and interfered with the discharge of official duty of forest officials. The forest officials allegedly had detected offences punishable under the Wild Life (Protection) Act. Flesh of a wild pig, a scheduled animal, was being distributed allegedly at the scene of the crime. The forest officials intervened. But they were attacked and they were deterred from performing their official duty. Crime was registered at the local police station. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The petitioners had moved the bail Bench of this Court for anticipatory bail. That application of theirs stands dismissed. They have not chosen to challenge that order. Instead, they have now come to this Court with a prayer to quash Crl.M.C. No.4422 of 2008 2 the F.I.R registered invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. This Court does, of course, have the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction in an appropriate case to quash an investigation and thus restrain the police from investigating into a crime registered. Satisfactory, compelling and exceptional reasons must be shown to exist to justify the invocation of such extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. In the facts and circumstances of this case the only reason urged is that the forest officials did not have jurisdiction to take action under the Wild Life (Protection) Act. This contention in turn is founded on the fact that the hunted animal as such has not been seized. Only the flesh allegedly of such scheduled animal was seized. It is further contended that the petitioners are not named in the F.I.R. For that reason also the crime is liable to be quashed, it is urged. 4. I am unable to accept the contentions. At this early stage, I shall not embark on a more detailed discussion on merits about the acceptability of the allegations. The mere fact that rest of the dead body of the hunted animal has not been seized is certainly not a sufficient ground to quash the F.I.R registered. Crl.M.C. No.4422 of 2008 3 Similarly the fact that all the accused persons have not been named in the F.I.R is again not a sufficient reason to justify the invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. I need only mention that I find no reason at this early stage to take away the right/power/obligation of the police to conduct an investigation into a crime like the instant one. The police must conduct a fair and efficient investigation and ascertain the culpability, if any, of the accused persons including the petitioners herein. Needless to say, if the petitioners surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the prosecutor in charge of the case, such application of theirs must be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously in the light of the dictum in Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1) KLT 339]. No special or specific directions appear to be necessary. I have no reason to assume that the same shall not be done. If there be non compliance, the avenues of challenge/complaint are available for the petitioner. 5. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but with the above specific observations. Crl.M.C. No.4422 of 2008 4 6. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioners for production before the court below. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-