IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2009 / 7TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 384 of 2009() ------------------------ MC.6/2009 OF THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- SURESH, S/O.THALASSERY VEETTIL VELAYUDHAN KANIYARKODE VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL SRI.PMA.KALAM RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- 1. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, THRISSUR. 2. M.RAJAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT, PARAKADAVU PADASEKHARA KARSHAKA SAMITHI, KANIYARKODE VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 & 3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 384 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of January, 2009 O R D E R Against the petitioner a conditional order under Section 133 Cr.P.C. has been issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. In that conditional order the Sub Divisional Magistrate has stated that complaints have been received from certain persons, including the President of the Parakkadavu Padasekharam Karshaka Samithi, that the petitioner is indulging in the activity which amount to public nuisance. The petitioner allegedly carries on the activity of brick manufacture and for this purpose he has allegedly been digging paddy fields causing danger to the paddy cultivation in the neighbouring plots. It is also alleged that the action of the petitioner is likely to result in the river changing its course and thereby causing inconvenience and nuisance to many persons in the locality. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, on receipt of such information and after applying his mind, has proceeded to pass the impugned conditional order Crl.M.C.No. 384 of 2009 2 under Section 133 Cr.P.C. calling upon the petitioner either to comply with the conditional order or to appear and show cause. 2. Instead of either complying with the conditional order or appearing before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and showing cause the petitioner has rushed to this Court with this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that the impugned conditional order may be set aside. 3. What is the reason? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there has been no proper application of mind by the Sub Divisional Magistrate before passing the conditional order. No report of the subordinate Revenue officials of Police officials were called and the impugned order has been passed on the basis of the complaint received from the complainants and also the personal observations of the Sub Divisional Magistrate. In these circumstances invoking the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the impugned conditional order may be set aside, it is prayed. 4. I must alertly remind myself that I am called upon to invoke and exercise the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this Crl.M.C.No. 384 of 2009 3 Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Such jurisdiction, it is trite, is not to be invoked as a matter of course. It can be invoked only when exceptional reasons are shown to exist inducing in the mind of the court the satisfaction that failure of justice is likely to result unless immediate action is taken in the interests of justice. 5. The impugned order, I do note, is only a conditional order. It gives the option to the petitioner either to comply with the conditional order or to appear before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and show cause. I am, in these circumstances, persuaded to hold that there is no reason or justification to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner can appear before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and show cause. Needless to say, such cause will have to be considered by the Sub Divisional Magistrate in accordance with law and only after that final orders can be passed under section 138 Cr.P.C. I do not find any reason to invoke the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction. 6. This Crl.M.C. is in these circumstances dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that the dismissal of this Crl.M.C. will not Crl.M.C.No. 384 of 2009 4 in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to appear before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and show cause to the Sub Divisional Magistrate as to why the conditional order should not be made absolute. (R. BASANT) Judge tm