IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2008 / 8TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2762 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.45/2002 of ENQUIRY COMMR. & SPL. JUDGE, THRISSUR (CRIME NO.12/1997) .................... PETITIONERS/ PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 5 & 6: ------------------- 1. K.P.SANTHOSH, S/O.PARAMESWARAN KOPPATHIL HOUSE, KOLAHI, ATHEKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. V.A.RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.ACHUTHAN NAIR, VARIATHPARAMBIL, AVITTATHUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/ STATE: ------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.N.SUKUMARAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C No.2762 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of July, 2008 ORDER Petitioners are accused 5 and 6 in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 120 B I.P.C. The crux of the allegations against the petitioners is that they colluded with the other accused and conspired to secure unjustified and undeserved regularisation of themselves as drivers under the Devaswom Board. The petitioners had secured such regularisation in appointment. On the basis of the final report submitted by the investigator, cognizance was taken by the Special Judge and Enquiry Commissioner. Charges were framed as early as on 21.06.07. The matter admittedly stands posted for trial to 02.08.08. 2. At this stage, the petitioners have come before this Court with a prayer that the prosecution launched against them may be quashed invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. What is the reason ? Charges against the petitioners were framed as early as on 21.06.07. The order framing charges is a revisable order. No challenge has been raised so far in revision. The petitioners have now chosen to come to this Court with this petition to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. When the remedy of revision is available to the petitioners to challenge Crl.M.C No.2762 of 2008 2 the impugned order and they have not chosen to challenge the order in accordance with law within the time stipulated, compelling and exceptional reasons must be shown to exist to justify the invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction in their favour. Such jurisdiction is not to be invoked as a matter of course. Such jurisdiction cannot be invoked in favour of persons who are guilty of unjustified and long slumber without taking any effective action even in the wake of adverse orders passed against them. 3. I shall carefully avoid any detailed discussions on merits about the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the materials collected. Suffice it to say that I am not persuaded to agree that any such compelling and exceptional reasons do exist which can justify the warrant or invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to prematurely terminate the proceedings against the petitioners. 4. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this Crl.M.C will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioners to raise all appropriate, relevant and necessary contentions before the learned Special Judge in the course of the trial. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- Crl.M.C No.2762 of 2008 3