IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2008 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4686 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.63/1998 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ALATHUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUNIL KUMAR.S., MIRAFLORES ESTATE, PADAGIRI.P.O. PALAKKAD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR SRI.KURYAN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, NELLIAMPATHY RANGE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVEENDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2008 ALONG WITH CRL.M.C.NOS.4689 & CONN.CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.Nos.4686, 4689 & 4690 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of December 2008 O R D E R The common petitioner faces indictment in three prosecutions all under the provisions of the Kerala Forest Act. Cognizance has been taken as early as in 1998. The petitioner has now come to this court with the plea that the prosecutions pending against the petitioner may be quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. What is the ground? Why has the petitioner, who claims to have appeared before the learned Magistrate long earlier, chosen not to come to this court to claim quashing of proceedings earlier? The petitioner must answer these queries to justify entertaining of these Crl.M.Cs. 3. To a pointed query, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there have been certain other prosecutions in which identical allegations were raised which have now ended in judgments of acquittal in favour of the petitioner. Which are those judgments? On what grounds did Crl.M.C.Nos.4686 & conn.cases 2 the court render judgments of acquittal in those cases? No satisfactory answers are forthcoming and the query is met with the reply that if time is given, such earlier judgments of acquittal shall be produced. I must say that I am disappointed that there is absolutely no justifiable reasons even urged to quash the criminal prosecutions initiated as early as in 1998. Reading between the lines is a permissible venture for all prudent minds. I cannot avoid the interference that these Crl.M.Cs have now been filed to avoid the obligation to get ready for trial in the three calender cases from which these Crl.M.Cs arise. I have no hesitation to conclude that at the moment and with the available inputs these Crl.M.Cs do not deserve consideration. 4. These Crl.M.Cs are accordingly dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Crl.M.C.Nos.4686 & conn.cases 3 Crl.M.C.Nos.4686 & conn.cases 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008