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. 4678 of 2008() ------------------------- CRIME NO.436/08 OF PAZHAYANGADI POLICE STATION PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 8 ---------------------------------- 1. K.V.KUNHIKANNAN, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN.K.(LATE) AGED 70 YEARS, AOLLIYAMVALAPPIL HOUSE, P.O.VENGARA, KANNUR TALUK. 2. M.T.PAVITHRAN, S/O.K.V.GOPALAN(LATE), AGED 70 YEARS, MUNDAKKATHARAMMAL HOUSE, P.O.VENGARA, KANNUR TALUK. 3. V.P.RAJEEVAN, S/O.K.AMBU (LATE),AGED 41 YEARS, VADAKKEPURAYIL HOUSE, P.O.VENGARA, KANNUR TALUK. 4. K.V.DINESH BABU, S/O.KANNAN V.K.V, AGED 41 YEARS, KIZHAKKEVEETTIL HOUSE, P.O.VENGARA,KLANNUR TALUK. 5. K.V.NANDANAN, S/O.K.DAMODARAN, AGED 40 YEARS, KOLLIYAMVALAPPIL HOUSE, P.O.VENGARA KANNUR TALUK. 6. V.AJITH KUMAR, S/O.OTHENAN NAMBIAR.K.V., KUNNUMMAL HOUSE, P.O.VENGARA, KANNUR TALUK. 7. B.P.VENUGOPALAN, S/O.B.P.KANNAN MASTER, AGED 52 YEARS, P.O.VENGARA, KANNUR TALUK. 8. P.MURALEEDHARAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 35 YEARS, P.O.VENGARA, KANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. N.KARUNAKARAN, S/O.KUNHAMBU, NANIYEL HOUSE, CHERUTHAZHAM AMSOM, VAYALAPRA, PAZHAYANGADI, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAZHAYANGADI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.4678 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of January, 2009 ORDER Petitioners had come before this Court with a prayer that the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to quash an investigation, which is now pending against them, alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 306 I.P.C. 2. A lady in the neighbourhood committed suicide. She left a suicide note which indicates that the petitioners were culpably responsible for her death. A crime was initially registered under the caption `unnatural death' under Section 174 Cr.P.C. But in the course of investigation, reports have been filed to incorporate the allegation under Section 306 I.P.C to array the petitioners as accused. Primarily the impleadment is done on the basis of the suicide note allegedly left behind by the deceased. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in any view of the matter, the petitioners do not deserve to face proceedings under Section 306 I.P.C. There were some disputes between a Mutt, of which the petitioners are the office bearers, and the deceased. They had property disputes. The petitioners were pressing the claims made by the Mutt, of which they are Crl.M.C. No.4678 of 2008 2 office bearers. Merely because the lady committed suicide, it cannot be assumed that the petitioners are guilty of the offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C, submits the counsel. 4. I take note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. According to me, it would be premature for this Court to hazard an opinion as to whether the petitioners are liable to answer the allegation under Section 306 I.P.C. I do not intend to express any opinion on merits either way. Suffice it to say that I am not persuaded to agree that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C can or ought to be invoked to preempt an investigation to ascertain the complicity of the petitioners, if any, under Section 306 I.P.C. The nature and quality of the jurisdiction of this Court at this stage of the proceedings must be alertly borne in mind by this Court. I am not persuaded to agree that the police can be deprived of the right/opportunity - nay the obligation to conduct an investigation, to ascertain whether the petitioners have any culpable role in the commission of suicide by the deceased. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have already moved the bail bench to seek anticipatory bail. It is submitted that the petitioners now do not want to press that application also. They are willing to Crl.M.C. No.4678 of 2008 3 surrender before the learned Magistrate or the Investigating Officer and then seek regular bail. It is prayed that appropriate directions may be issued to ensure expeditious disposal of the regular bail application to be filed by the petitioners after their surrender before the Investigating Officer/learned Magistrate. 6. An anticipatory bail application is pending. Pendency of the anticipatory bail will not of course fetter the option of the petitioners to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and then seek regular bail. If they seek regular bail, needless to say, their application for regular bail will have to be considered on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. I have no reason to assume that their bail application shall not receive such consideration. Sufficient general directions have already been issued in Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1) KLT 339]. I am not persuaded to agree that any further specific or special direction need be issued in the matter by this Court. 7. This Crl.M.C is accordingly dismissed, but with the above observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-