IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2008 / 21ST SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3043 of 2008() ------------------------- SC.43/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKOE .................... PETITIONERS/A1 TO 3: --------------------------------- 1. K. SAHAJANANDAN, S/O. GOVINDAN AGED 53 YEARS, PRINCIPAL, GOVT. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL VADAKARA, P.O. PUTHUR, VIA. VADAKARA NOW WORKING AS PRINCIPAL GOVT. FISHERIES HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL MADAPPALLY. 2. P.K. SATHEESH, S/O. SANKARAN, AGED 45 YEARS P.D. TEACHER, DO. DO NOW WORKING AT GOVT. GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, NADAKKAV, KOZHIKOE. 3. V.K. RAJAN, S/O. KUNHIRAMAN, AGED 54 YEARS H.S.A. (HINDI), GOVT. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL VADAKARA, P.O. PUTHUR, VIA. VADAKARA. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. BEENA P., W/O. G.K. VENU, AGED 34 YEARS VEDIKA, P.O. AYANIKKAD, VIA. IRINGOLD, KOYILANDY TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 3043 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of August, 2008 O R D E R The petitioners are accused 1 to 3 in a Sessions Case registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. A complaint was filed before the learned Magistrate by the first respondent. The learned Magistrate, following the procedure prescribed in the Code, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Sessions case has been registered. The petitioners have already appeared before the Sessions Court also. Charges have not been framed so far, it is submitted. 2. It is at this stage that they have come before this Court with a prayer that appropriate direction may be issued under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against them. The contention is that at any rate allegation under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not revealed at all. Crl.M.C.No. 3043 of 2008 2 3. There is no contention that the petitioners shall not be liable to stand the trial on any charge on the allegations raised. The only contention, as stated earlier, is that the allegation under Section 3(1) (xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not sustainable. 4. I am of the opinion that at this stage it is not necessary for this Court to consider that contention. The learned Sessions Judge is in seizin of the matter. The next step to be performed by the Sessions Court is to hear the parties under Section 227/228 Cr.P.C. and take a decision as to whether charges deserve to be framed for any sessions offence or whether the accused deserve to be discharged or the case deserves to be sent back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 228 Cr.P.C. 5. I am satisfied that it is not necessary for this Court to invoke the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at this stage. This is not to say that the petitioners have no case to be advanced before the Sessions Judge at the stage of Section 227/228 Cr.P.C. The Code has provisions which are calculated to save persons Crl.M.C.No. 3043 of 2008 3 who do not deserve to stand trial before the Sessions Court of such unnecessary trauma and ordeal. The petitioners must advance their contentions before the learned Sessions Judge, who must take appropriate decision under Section 227/228 Cr.P.C. Of course, powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are available with the court and can be invoked in the interests of justice at any stage. But I am not persuaded that such exceptional reasons are available in this case. The petitioners must be relegated to claim the relief at the stage of Section 227/228 Cr.P.C. from the learned Sessions Judge, I am satisfied. 6. This Crl.M.C. is dismissed. I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this Crl.M.C. will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioners to raise appropriate contentions at the stage of Section 227/228 Cr.P.C. In fact I go one step further and say that the learned Sessions Judge must consider such contentions expeditiously. I do further direct that for the mere hearing at the stage of Section 227/228 cr.P.C. the learned Sessions Judge shall not insist on the personal presence of the petitioners and if the petitioners are represented by Crl.M.C.No. 3043 of 2008 4 their counsel, they shall not be called upon to appear in person, unless the learned Judge takes a decision that charges are liable to be framed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm