IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2008 / 23RD ASWINA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3817 of 2008() ----------------------------------- L.P. NO.47/2006( C.C. NO.767/2003 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, SASTHAMCOTTA. ........ PETITIONER): PETITIONER/ACCUSED. --------------------- ANILKUMAR, S/O.SURENDRAN PILLAI, DAIVAMANGALATHU VEEDU, SOORANADU P.O., PADINJARARAM MURI, SOORANADU VADAKKU, FROM ANIL BHAVAN, PADINJATTAM MURIYIL,SOORANADU P.O., NOW EMPLOYED IN ABU DABI. BY ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE RESPONDENTS: STATE/DEFACTO COMPALINANT. ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. PRASANNAN, KAMALAVILASAM, THRIKKUNNAPPUZHA MURI, PATHARAM P.O., SOORANADU SOUTH VILLAGE. 3. SURENDRAN PILLAI, ANILBHAVAN, SOORANADU NORTH. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/2008, ALONG WITH CRL.M.C. NO.3818/2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. Nos.3817 & 3818 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of October, 2008 ORDER The common petitioner in these two Crl.M.Cs. faces indictment in two separate prosecutions – both under Sec.420 IPC. The crux of the identical allegations against the petitioner in both these cases is that he had induced the victims (R2 in these two petitions) to part with money on the unintended and fraudulent promise that Visas for employment abroad shall be made available to them. Visas were not made available and amounts were not returned. Subsequently, when demands were made, cheques were allegedly issued by the petitioner to the victims. Those cheques were dishonoured by the bank. Notices of demand issued did not evoke any response from the petitioner. It is, in these circumstances, that the proceedings Crl.M.C. Nos.3817 & 3818 of 2008 -: 2 :- were initiated against the petitioner by the victims. 2. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken as early as in 2003. The petitioner has not entered appearance so far. The case against him has been transferred to the list of Long Pending Cases. Coercive processes have been issued to procure the presence of the petitioner. The petitioner is now said to be employed abroad. He apprehends arrest when he returns to India. 3. The petitioner, in these circumstances, has come to this Court with a prayer that the powers under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash the proceedings against him. 4. What is the reason? The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations are totally false and are raised with vexatious intent. The petitioner had married a woman of his choice to the displeasure of his father – the 3rd respondent herein. The petitioner was constrained to go away from his house when he was thrown out of his house by his father. The father had retained with him two blank cheques. Forging the signatures of the petitioner and other entries in the said blank cheques, the father of the petitioner – the 3rd respondent, has procured the services of the 2nd respondents in Crl.M.C. Nos.3817 & 3818 of 2008 -: 3 :- these two cases and they have raised false allegations against the petitioner at the instance of the father of the petitioner. Notices of demand were received; but the petitioner did not respond to the same as it was thought that the father will not stoop to initiate such proceedings against the petitioner. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have perused the records and considered the submissions. The powers under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. are to be invoked sparingly and in exceptional cases in aid of justice. Complicated disputes on facts cannot be attempted to be resolved at this stage of the proceedings while exercising the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. Such questions deserve to be considered by the courts at the appropriate stage. The petitioner has attempted to advance a defence version before me in these petitions under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. It would be hazardous for this Court to express any opinion on the acceptability of the allegations raised or the defences urged. At this early stage and with the available inputs, I shall not embark on any detailed discussions on merits. Suffice it to say that I am not persuaded to agree that there are any circumstances that can justify or warrant the invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction Crl.M.C. Nos.3817 & 3818 of 2008 -: 4 :- in favour of the petitioner at this stage. 6. In the result: (a) These Crl.M.Cs. are dismissed. (b) I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of these Crl.M.Cs. will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to raise all appropriate and relevant contentions before the learned Magistrate at the appropriate stage in an attempt to claim discharge/acquittal in the prosecution. (c) It is further observed that if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Magistrate and seeks bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge Crl.M.C. Nos.3817 & 3818 of 2008 -: 5 :- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/