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. 3809 of 2008() ----------------------------------- C.P. NO.10/2007 OF THE JUDICIAL IST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, MANANTHAVADY. .... PETITIONER: ACCUSED: ----------------------- MANOJ, S/O.VARGHESE, PLANTHOTTATHIL HOUSE, ANCHUKUNNU AMSOM DESOM, P.O.ANCHUKUNNU, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT: STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. GIRIJA, D/O.MATHI, KOLATHARAPOYIL, WARD NO.XVIII, PANAMARAM PANCHAYATH, WAYANAD DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 3809 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of October, 2008 ORDER The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.313 IPC and Sec.3(1) (xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Act. The crux of the allegations raised is that the petitioner had induced the de facto complainant to cause miscarriage. She had allegedly become pregnant in her physical relationship with the petitioner. The petitioner wanted the pregnancy to be aborted. She initially resisted. Later, misleading the victim to believe that vitamin tablets were being given to her, he administered certain medicines to induce abortion and thus the miscarriage resulted. A crime was registered. Cognizance was taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation. Allegations are seen raised under Sec.3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Act as also Crl.M.C. No. 3809 of 2008 -: 2 :- under Secs.493 and 313 IPC. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent and that in any view of the matter, the petitioner does not deserve to stand the trauma of an undeserved prosecution against him. The counsel contends that in any view of the matter, the prosecution deserves to be quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. 3. Premature termination of an undeserved indictment can be claimed by the indictee under the ordinary provisions of the Code. In an offence triable exclusively by a Court of Session, such premature termination must be claimed by discharge at the stage of Sec.227/228 Cr.P.C. Of course, in an exceptional case where the interests of justice compellingly demand resort to such course, this Court has the reservoir of powers under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. to prematurely terminate the proceedings against the indictee. But the invocation of the powers under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. cannot be a matter of course. Satisfactory, compelling and exceptional reasons must be shown to exist to justify such invocation. 4. In any view of the matter, in this case I am unable to agree that the prosecution for the charge under Sec.313 IPC Crl.M.C. No. 3809 of 2008 -: 3 :- deserves to be quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. The specific allegation appears to be that the victim who had become pregnant on account of the illicit sexual relationship with the petitioner and the victim was induced by the petitioner fraudulently to cause miscarriage by consuming certain tablets which were represented to be vitamin tablets. At the moment and with the available inputs, it is not possible for this Court to hold, exercising the jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C., that the allegations are so grossly false or untenable as to justify the invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. The arguments of the learned counsel that sufficient medical evidence has not been collected etc., are not be reckoned as relevant at this stage. 5. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed. I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to raise all appropriate contentions before the Sessions Court for discharge at the stage of Sec.227 Cr.P.C. or if that be not successful for acquittal at later stages. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not so far appeared before the committal court. Crl.M.C. No. 3809 of 2008 -: 4 :- He is willing to surrender before the committal court and seek regular bail. The petitioner apprehends that his application for regular bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come to this Court for a direction to the learned Magistrate to release him on bail when he appears before the learned Magistrate. 7. It is for the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the circumstances under which he could not earlier appear before the learned Magistrate. I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider the petitioner's application for regular bail on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. No special or specific directions appear to be necessary. Every court must do the same. Sufficient general directions on this aspect have already been issued in the decision reported in Alice George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339). 8. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed; but with the observation 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 Crl.M.C. No. 3809 of 2008 -: 5 :- must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself. Needless to say, the application for bail shall be considered in the light of the decisions in Alice George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339); Ali v. State of Kerala (2000 (2) K.L.T. 280); Shanu v. State of Kerala (2000 (3) K.L.T. 452); Krishnakumar v. State of Kerala (2005 (1) K.L.D. (Cri) 42 and P.P. Kader v. State of Kerala (2005 (1) K.L.D. (Cri) 250). Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge Crl.M.C. No. 3809 of 2008 -: 6 :-