IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2009 / 24TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 175 of 2009() ------------------------ CP.106/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED' ----------------------- O.A.SUNILKUMAR, S/O. AMBUJAN, 'SAROMA' MANIKANDESWARAM P.O. PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-13. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAVIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.128/2006 OF PEROORKADA POLICE STATION) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.175 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January 2009 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations is that the petitioner, on account of prior animosity, drove a vehicle and knocked down the victims against whom he allegedly had prior animosity. The crime was initially registered as a road traffic accident case; but in the course of investigation, this allegation under Section 307 I.P.C was raised and the other allegations were given up when the final report was filed. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is transparently an accident case and the inclusion of the allegation under Section 307 I.P.C is totally unjustified. The learned counsel for the petitioner hence prays that the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to quash the criminal prosecution against the petitioners. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction which I am called upon to invoke and exercise. It is the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Such jurisdiction cannot obviously be invoked to resolve disputed questions of fact. I shall not delve Crl.M.C.No. 175/09 2 deeper into the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that at the moment and with the available inputs, it appears to be impossible for this court to hazard an authentic opinion as to whether the allegations raised against the petitioner are true or correct or whether the defence propounded by the petitioner is more acceptable. That controversy cannot obviously be resolved with the available inputs. It follows that the prayer to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction to quash the indictment cannot be accepted. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there may be an observation that the petitioner can claim discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. No observation of this court is necessary. Every accused is entitled to stake his claim for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C and the Sessions Court or the Assistant Sessions Court is bound under law to consider the plea for discharge and take appropriate decision at the stage of Section 227/228 Cr.P.C. No further or specific directions appear to be necessary. 4. In the result, this Crl.M.C is dismissed with the above observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No. 175/09 3 Crl.M.C.No. 175/09 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008