IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2008 / 27TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2710 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.656/2004 of JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED: ------------------------------------- MUTHU KUMAR, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLENCODE POLICE STATION, TAMIL NADU, NOW WORKING IN TAMILNADU CHIEF MINISTER'S SECURITY CELL, SPECIAL BRANCH CID. BY ADV. SRI.R.GOPAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANTS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. AMBIKA, PLANKALA ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, KAROD VILLAGE, CHANKUVILLA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/07/2008 ALONG WITH CRL.M.C.NO.2715 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. Nos. 2710 & 2715 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of July, 2008 ORDER The petitioners in these two Crl.M.Cs. are police officials and the 1st petitioner in both Crl.M.Cs. is common. Cognizance has been taken against them in two cases both registered before the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Neyyattinkara. Cognizance was taken as early as in 2004. The petitioner had entered appearance much earlier. At this point of time, the petitioners have come before this Court with a prayer that the proceedings against them may be quashed by invoking the jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. 2. What is the reason? Why did the petitioners, who had entered appearance before the court below long earlier, not choose to come before this Court earlier? Why is it that they are now raising this contention in these old matters Crl.M.C. Nos. 2710 & 2715 of 2008 -: 2 :- before this Court? 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that the cases stand posted finally for trial now and if the plea is not now considered, the petitioners would be obliged to take part in the trial. That would work out injustice and will amount to unnecessary vexation of the petitioners, submits the learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. I must say that I am not persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is any justification or merit in the prayer for the invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this Court at this belated hour. The petitioners, who have not chosen to raise this contention before the learned Magistrate specifically at any prior point of time and have not chosen to come before this Court with such contention earlier, cannot, at this eleventh hour, be permitted to raise this contention and thus protract the disposal of the two cases. It appears to me that the transparent intention behind the filing of these petitions now is only to drag on the matter and the petitioners cannot be assumed to have come to this Court with clean hand. 5. Nay, I do not intend to express any opinion on the contention raised in these petitions that the prosecution is bad Crl.M.C. Nos. 2710 & 2715 of 2008 -: 3 :- for want of sanction under Sec.197 Cr.P.C. But I am satisfied that, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases, the petitioners must be directed to raise such contention before the learned Magistrate in the course of the trial and seek appropriate directions. Absolutely no necessity is perceived by me to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioners. 6. These Crl.M.Cs. are, in these circumstances, dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Magistrate may insist on unnecessary personal appearance of the petitioners and if that is done, that would cause great hardship and difficulty to to the petitioners. The trial is to commence now. If the petitioners file a statement/undertaking/ affidavit that they do not want to dispute their identity, the learned Magistrate must consider the same and appropriate decision on merits can be taken on their prayer for exemption from personal appearance. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge Crl.M.C. Nos. 2710 & 2715 of 2008 -: 4 :-