IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1ST ASWINA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3552 of 2008() ------------------------- CRIME NO.307/08 OF CHERPULLASSERY POLICE STATION PETITIONER: 1ST ACCUSED ------------ P.K.BIJU, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.GOVINDAN NAIR, PARAPPOOR KALATHIL VEEDU, NELLAYA. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR RESPONDENTS: DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------- 1. P.K.LATHA, AGED 38 YEARS, W/O.UNNI, PARIYARATHU VEEDU, CHERPULLASSERY. 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 23/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.3552 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2008 ORDER This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C by the petitioner, who faces allegations as the 1st accused in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 120 B and Section 420 r/w 34 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations is that a blank signed paper which was handed over by the defacto complainant to the accused was misutilised by them to convert the same into a demand promissory note. Notice of demand was issued on the basis of the demand promissory note. It is at that stage that the complainant rushed to the Magistrate with a complaint alleging the offences punishable under Sections 120 B, 420 I.P.C etc. Investigation has commenced. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations are false and are only a counter blast for the civil claim raised in the demand notice issued by the accused on the basis of the demand promissory note. 3. The prayer is to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In an appropriate Crl.M.C. No.3552 of 2008 2 case where the interests of justice so demand, this Court definitely has the jurisdictional competence to set aside an F.I.R registered. The question is only whether this is an appropriate case in which such extraordinary inherent jurisdiction can or ought to be invoked. 4. I shall carefully avoid any detailed discussion on merits about the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data collected. I am certainly of the opinion that the allegations, if true, do reveal a cognizable offence. I am not persuaded to agree that there is any reason or justification to jump to the conclusion now that the assertion of the petitioner is true and the assertion of the defacto complainant is false or mala fide. Suffice it to say that I do not find any reason to deny the police of their jurisdiction to conduct a proper investigation into the allegations raised. 5. It is submitted that the petitioner apprehends vexatious arrest. I have no reason to assume that the Investigating Officer would resort to a vexatious arrest. Crl.M.C. No.3552 of 2008 3 Merely because a crime alleging cognizable offences has been registered, it is not necessary to arrest a person arrayed as an accused and that discretion must be exercised by the Investigating Officer informed of all the relevant inputs as already stated in Jyothish v. State of Kerala [2007(3) KLT 176]. The Investigating Officer has to apply his mind to the question and record the reasons in the case diary if he chooses to arrest a person arrayed as an accused. If the petitioner apprehends vexatious and mala fide resort of the power of arrest, the petitioner necessarily has the option to seek anticipatory bail or to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. I am not persuaded to agree that any directions in this regard need be issued in this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but with the above observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-