IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2008 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1993 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.216/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOCHI .................... PETITIONER: ------------ RODRIGO-JR-ACOSTA CANDYMON, AGED 23, S/O.RODRIGO, DICOS DAVAO SUR GENERAL SANDOS CITY, CALUMPANG STREET, PHILIPPINES, PRESENTLY AT M/S. NAS MARINE PRODUCTS, KARTHIKA, EDAKOCHI, KOCHI-6. BY ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SMT.SHEENA SAMUEL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. S.I. OF POLICE, KOCHI CUSBA POLICE STATION, PALLURUTHY. BY P.P. SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C No.1993 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2008 ORDER Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 506 I.P.C. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner has been enlarged on bail also. 2. The petitioner has come to this Court with a prayer that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner is a foreign national. He is now obliged to remain in India because of the pendency of the proceedings. He has applied for a visa on that ground. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. 3. What are the reasons ? The learned counsel for the petitioner first of all contends that the knife, allegedly recovered from the petitioner, is not one which will attract the provisions of the Arms Act. It is not prohibited article. Crl.M.C No.1993 of 2008 2 4. That contention does, of course, deserve to be considered seriously. But even if the finding of that contention were in favour of the petitioner, I am afraid, the prayer for quashing of the proceedings cannot succeed in as much as there is an allegation raised against the petitioner under Section 506 (ii) I.P.C. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that it is not necessary to consider the former contention in any further detail now in this proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate can be directed to consider the said contention. 5. As regards the charge under Section 506(ii) I.P.C, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged victim is himself the Investigating Officer. That circumstance can certainly be urged in the course of the trial as one in favour of the petitioner. But at any rate, I am not satisfied that the said contention, even if, accepted, would justify the invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. The prayer for quashing the proceedings, in these circumstances, has to be turned down. The petition deserves to be dismissed. However I take note of the plight of the petitioner. Crl.M.C No.1993 of 2008 3 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that unless there is an expeditious disposal of the case against him, the interest of the petitioner, a foreign national, is likely to suffer material prejudice. The case now stands posted to 03.06.08. I need only observe that I expect the learned Magistrate to expeditiously complete the trial against the petitioner. The trial has to be completed as expeditiously as possible - at any rate, within a period of 4 months from 03.06.08, unless there be compelling and exceptional reasons. Compliance shall be reported to this Court. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-