IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2008 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3400 of 2008() ------------------------- (AGAINST CRIME NO.354/2008 OF KOZHINJAMPARA POLICE STATION) PETITIONER: ------------- MANI GOUND @ KRISHNASWAMY GOUNDER S/O.NACHIMUTHU GOUNDER, AGED 37 YEARS RESIDING AT METHAKKALAM MANGAPPALLAM, ERUTHEMPATHY VILLAGE,CHITTUR TALUK PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOZHINJAMPARA POLICE STATION, KOZHINJAMPARA. PALAKKAD DISTIRCT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 3400 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of October, 2008 O R D E R Petitioner faces allegations in a crime alleging offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 354 IPC. In the course of investigation allegation under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has also been included. 2. Petitioner has come to this Court with a prayer that the report including the allegation under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act may be quashed. 3. What is the reason ? The counsel submits that the FIR initially did not contain the allegation under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The allegation under Section 354 IPC had been included specifically. The victim is a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste. The petitioner does not belong to any Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. In these circumstances I am not persuaded to agree that the allegation under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Crl.M.C. No. 3400 OF 2008 -:2:- Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, though included subsequently, such belated inclusion can persuade this Court to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At the moment and with the available inputs, I find absolutely no reason to quash the said allegation included subsequently as the foundation for the allegation is already there in the FI statement recorded by the police. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the inclusion of that allegation (all other offences are allegedly bailable) against the petitioner shall cause serious prejudice and hardship to him. Petitioner cannot now seek anticipatory bail in the light of Section 18 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. If he surrenders before the learned Magistrate and applies for bail, the petitioner apprehends that his application for bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. The offence being one triable exclusively by a court of Sessions, the Magistrate may abdicate his jurisdiction and may not consider the same on merits. In these circumstances appropriate directions Crl.M.C. No. 3400 OF 2008 -:3:- may be issued under Section 482 Cr.P.C to safeguard the interests of the petitioner, submits the counsel. 5. In these circumstances, the petitioner has come to this Court with a prayer that this Court may be pleased to issue directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C to the Magistrate to comply with the directions in Alice George vs.Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1)KLT 339] and consider the application for bail to be filed by the petitioner when he surrenders before the learned Magistrate favourably. It is for the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. 6. Sufficient general directions have already been issued in Alice George (Supra). 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 are available for the petitioner. 7. This court has time and again repeated that the mere fact that an offence is triable exclusively by the court of Session cannot Crl.M.C. No. 3400 OF 2008 -:4:- justify abdication of jurisdiction by the Magistrate under Section 437 Cr.P.C. I do not want to issue any further directions or make any observation which may fetter the discretion of the learned magistrate. But it is essential that the learned Magistrate must consider such application for bail to be filed by the petitioner on his surrender before the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously in the light of the decisions in Ali v. State of Kerala [2000(2) KLT 280], Shanu V. State of Kerala [2000(3) KLT 452] Krishnakumar V. State of Kerala [2005 (1) KLD (Crl.) 42] and P.P. Khadr V. State of Kerala [2005 (1) KLD (Crl.) 250] - on the date of surrender itself. 8. In the result, this petition is dismissed subject to the above specific observations. 9. Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner for production before the learned Magistrate. R. BASANT, JUDGE ttb Crl.M.C. No. 3400 OF 2008 -:5:- Crl.M.C. No. 3400 OF 2008 -:6:- Crl.M.C. No. 3400 OF 2008 -:7:-