IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2008 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1916 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.358/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I,KOYILANDY .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED: ------------------------- V.DIJITH, S/O.SREENIVASAN, VALATHILPADI VEEDU, AMBALANGADI, NALLOOR, FAROKE P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SMT.T.V.NEEMA SMT.S.SHEEJA KUMARY(AYOOR) RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED 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 17/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 1916 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of June, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Sections 279 and 338 IPC. The crux of the allegations against him appears to be that he who was riding a two wheeler had turned the vehicle suddenly to the right without showing proper signals thereby endangering human life on the public road. As a result of such conduct, it was alleged that a vehicle which was coming behind him hit the vehicle of the petitioner resulting in injuries to the victims and damage to the vehicles. 2. The petitioner has come before this Court complaining that the final report filed by the police after investigation is unjustified. An attempt is made to save the rider of the vehicle on the rear and to expose the petitioner to unjustified harassment by initiating a criminal proceedings against him, it is complained. It is in these circumstances prayed that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor after taking instructions submits that the investigation reveals that the road traffic accident Crl.M.C. No. 1916 OF 2008 2 occurred not on account of the negligence or rashness exclusively of the rider of any one vehicle. The accident took place on account of the culpable, rashness and negligence of both the vehicle riders and it is in these circumstances that final reports have been filed raising specific allegations both against the petitioner and the rider of the other vehicle. There is absolutely no reason at this stage to invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against either of the two indictees. The materials collected sufficiently justifies the allegations against the petitioner as also the other accused, it is submitted. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition made by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am unable to agree that the facts and circumstances of this case justify or warrant invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Petitioner must appear before the learned Magistrate and raise all his contentions before the learned Magistrate. 5. This petition is accordingly dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner intends to file Crl.M.C. No. 1916 OF 2008 3 an application for conducting further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. Needless to say, such application if filed will have to be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed by the learned Magistrate. R. BASANT, JUDGE ttb Crl.M.C. No. 1916 OF 2008 4 Crl.M.C. No. 1916 OF 2008 5