IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2009 / 1ST MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 308 of 2009(Y) ------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.1235/2008 OF KUNDARA POLICE STATION) ...... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. NAZAR, S/O.KAMAL, KOCHUVILAKATH VEEDU, SUNI BHAVANAM, COLASSERI, KERALAPURAM, KOLLAM. 2. NASEER, S/O.KAMAL, KOCHUVILAKATH VEEDU, SUNI BHAVANAM, COLASSERI, KERALAPURAM, KOLLAM. 3. SAKEER, S/O.KAMAL, KOCHUVILAKATH VEEDU, SUNI BHAVANAM, COLASSERI, KERALAPURAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNDARA POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SURESH KUMAR, KOCHUVILA VEEDU, PUNAKANNOOR CHERRY, KOTTANKARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 308 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2009 ORDER The petitioners face allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act'). All other offences are bailable offences. Crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners have not been arrested yet. They apprehend imminent arrest. According to the petitioners, they are absolutely innocent. The allegations are raised against them vexatiously. The petitioners are in a vulnerable position. Even if the allegations are not sustainable and are raised with vexatious intent, they are unable to seek relief under Sec.438 Cr.P.C. in the light of the embargo under Sec.18 of the Act. The petitioners apprehend that if they surrender Crl.M.C. No. 308 of 2009 -: 2 :- before the learned Magistrate or the Investigating Officer and seek regular bail, their applications for regular bail may not be considered on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously on the ground that the offence is triable exclusively by a Court of Session. In these circumstances, the petitioners have rushed to this Court with this application under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR registered or at least issue appropriate directions to ensure that their applications for regular bail are considered expeditiously by the learned Magistrate. 2. I shall not delve deeper into the controversy on the facts raised. Suffice it to say that I am not persuaded to agree that the FIR deserves to be quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. But, however, I find merit in the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Magistrate must be directed to consider the application for regular bail to be filed by the petitioners after their surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself. Crl.M.C. No. 308 of 2009 -: 3 :- 3. Sufficient general directions on this aspect have already been issued by this Court in the decision reported in Alice George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339) to ensure expeditious disposal of the application for bail filed by the persons surrendering before the Magistrate. 4. In 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) this Court has already reiterated that the mere fact that the offence is triable exclusively by a Court of Session cannot justify the abdication of the jurisdiction by the Magistrate under Sec.437 Cr.P.C. 5. In these circumstances, I do not find any necessity to issue any further, special or specific directions in favour of the petitioners. I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate shall not consider the bail application in the light of the precedents referred above on merits and expeditiously. 6. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed; but with the observation that if the petitioners surrender before the learned Crl.M.C. No. 308 of 2009 -: 4 :- Magistrate and seek 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 in the light of the precedents referred above. 7. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioners. SD/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge Crl.M.C. No. 308 of 2009 -: 5 :-