IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2009 / 22ND POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4994 of 2008() -------------------------------------- C.C.NO.449/2008 OF JFMC RANNI ........ (CRIME NO.250/08 OF RANNI POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ 1. MOHAMMED KHAN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.THAMPI, PRESIDENT, N.M.J. MOSQUE, THRIKKOMALA, RANNI. 2. AHAMMED KABIR, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. HASSAN, CHARUVIL VEETIL, THRIKKOMALA, RANNI. BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RANNI POLICE STATION 2. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 3. SHAJIMON @ SHAJI, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.IBRAHIM RAWTHER, PATHALUPURAYIDATHIL VEETIL, ANGADI VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB FOR R1 & R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4994 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of January 2009 O R D E R The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable inter alia under Section 506(ii) read with 34 I.P.C. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation. 2. In the locality, there is dispute between two groups. The petitioners belong to one and the de facto complainant belongs to the other. The de facto complainant is allegedly an accused in a crime registered under Section 308 I.P.C and bail has been granted to him as per Annexure III subject to the condition that he shall not enter the mosque or its premises including the pathway. The allegation against the petitioners is that on a subsequent day, they assaulted the de facto complainant. According to the petitioners, they are absolutely innocent of the allegations levelled against him. It is not a case where they have assaulted the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant, in violation of the conditions imposed on him in the order granting him bail, had entered into the premises of the said mosque. The petitioners had only taken objections to such conduct of the de facto complainant. They had detained the motor cycle in which the de facto Crl.M.C.No. 4994/08 2 complainant came and had informed the police. The police had come to the scene. According to the petitioners, the investigating officer, solely because of the animosity arising from Annexure IX order, has raised totally false and vexatious allegations against the petitioners. It is thus that the final report was filed. It is prayed that the final report filed may be quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C and the petitioners may be saved of the undeserved trauma of criminal prosecution initiated against them. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that they were guilty of contumacious overt acts against the de facto complainant. Those allegations have been investigated and final reports have already been filed. It is the case of the petitioners that the incident did not take place in the manner alleged by the police. According to them, what really happened was totally different and the petitioners had only taken objections against the entry of the de facto complainant into the premises of the mosque contrary to the conditions imposed on him while he was granted bail. Which of these allegations/assertions are true cannot obviously be decided by this court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The police have conducted investigation. They have come to the conclusion that the allegations against the petitioners are justified. Crl.M.C.No. 4994/08 3 Accordingly, the final report has already been filed. At the moment and with the available inputs this court cannot obviously hazard an opinion as to whether the allegations raised in the final report are correct or whether the defence set up by the petitioners are correct. 4. The petitioners can claim discharge at the stage of Section 239/240 Cr.P.C. If they are not successful, they can certainly raise all their contentions in the course of the trial. At any rate, I am unable to agree that there are any circumstances that can justify or warrant the invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C at the moment to bring to premature termination the prosecution that has been launched against the petitioners by the investigating officer . 5. In the result, this Crl.M.C is dismissed but with the specific observation that the dismissal of this Crl.M.C will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioners to claim discharge/acquittal as the case may be at the appropriate stage. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No. 4994/08 4 Crl.M.C.No. 4994/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008