Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgePetition dismissed with observations and direct...

MURALEEDHARAN and MRS.THANKA v. STATE OF KERALA

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C.No.478 of 2007

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • R. Basant
Judgment Date
2007-02-23
Court Decision / Holding
Crl.M.C. No.478 of 2007 is dismissed. However, the Sessions Judge is directed to consider the petitioners’ plea that they do not deserve to stand trial before the Sessions Judge and to decide, as per law, whether the charges should be framed or whether the matter should be sent to a Magistrate for trial under Section 228 Cr.P.C if appropriate.
Final Disposition
Petition dismissed with observations and directions to Sessions Judge to consider the plea regarding trial before a Magistrate

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • MR.MURALEEDHARAN
  • MRS.THANKA

Respondents

  • Complainant
  • State of Kerala represented by the Sub Inspector of Police of Thrissur West Police Station through the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri S. Mohammed Alrafi
  • • Sri K. J. Nasarul Aslam

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Public Prosecutor Sri Gikku Jacob

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No. 478 of 2007) filed in the Kerala High Court by the accused, Muralleedharan and his wife Thanga, challenging their committal to the Court of Session for trial on charges under Section 302 IPC and Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC. Cognizance had been taken, and the police report had been filed, with the Sessions Court having taken cognizance and the petitioners appearing before it. The petitioners contend that, even if the allegations are assumed true, they constitute offences that are primarily triable by a Magistrate; hence committal to the Sessions Court is unnecessary. They invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash or prevent the trial in the Sessions Court. The court clarifies that Section 482 Cr.P.C need not be invoked in every case where discharge or acquittal is possible; rather, it should be used in exceptional cases where invoking the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction is justified to prevent miscarriage of justice or a failure of justice. The petition is dismissed with observations that the Sessions Judge should consider the plea that charges against the petitioners are not liable to be framed and that the trial may be conducted by a Magistrate, if appropriate. The judge also emphasizes that unnecessary insistence on personal appearance should be avoided unless essential. Ultimately, the petition is dismissed, but the Sessions Judge is directed to address the argued claim that the petitioners should be tried only before the Magistrate.”

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 302 IPCSection 498A IPCSection 34 IPCSection 177 Cr.P.CSection 482 Cr.P.CSection 228 Cr.P.C

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
  • Interests of justice and miscarriage of justice considerations as criteria for invoking 482 Cr.P.C.
  • Normal remedies under the Code should be pursued before invoking extraordinary jurisdiction; avoid flooding petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that they should not be required to stand trial in the Sessions Court as the offences alleged are triable by a Magistrate; the committal to Sessions is unnecessary. They urged invoking the court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C only in exceptional circumstances to prevent miscarriage of justice and cited Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police, Chennai (2004) 8 SCC 100 as support for their position. They asked the Sessions Judge to exercise Section 228 Cr.P.C to send the matter back to the Magistrate if charges were not liable to be framed.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the matter involves serious offences and that the normal process of committal to the Sessions Court should proceed; the State prosecutor represents the case and supports the regular course of trial in the Sessions Court; no explicit alternative remedy or exception was urged to bypass the Sessions Court.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police, Chennai[(2004) 8 SCC 100]Mentioned OnlyCited by counsel to support the argument on Section 482 Cr.P.C jurisdiction; the court does not adopt the ratio but notes the citation as part of the argument.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against MURALEEDHARAN and MRS.THANKA v. STATE OF KERALA and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2007 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1928 Crl.MC.No. 478 of 2007() ------------------------ (CR.NO.146/2004 OF PALARIVATTAM POLICE STATION OF ERNAKULAM DISTRICT) PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------- 1. MR.MURALEEDHARAN , AGED 57 YEARS, EDATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, 32 COLONY, PULLUT CHAPPARA DESAM, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR. 2. MRS.THANKA, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O.MURALIDHARAN, EDATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, 32 COLONY, CHAPPARA DESAM, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED ALRAFI. SRI.K.J.NASARUL ASLAM. RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE OF THRISSUR WEST POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/02/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **R.BASANT, J** **----------------------** Crl.M.C.No.478 of 2007 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 23[rd] day of February 2007 ## **O R D E R** The petitioner, along with the co-accused, faces allegations in a sessions offence. Allegations under Section 302 and 498A read with 34 I.P.C are raised against the accused persons. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken. The learned Magistrate has committed the case to the court of Session. The court of Session has taken cognizance. The petitioners have also appeared before the learned Sessions Judge. 2. The short contention of the petitioners is that they do not deserve to stand trial before the Sessions Court and at worst, the allegations raised against them, even if accepted in toto, are only offences which can be tried by the learned Magistrate. In these circumstances, committal to the court of Session is unnecessary. They should not be compelled to stand trial along with the co-accused before the court of Session. This, in short, is the plea. Crl.M.C.No.478/07 2 2. The petitioners, admittedly, have already appeared before the learned Sessions Judge. Charges have not been framed. The petitioners have the option to urge the contention before the learned Sessions Judge and contend that charges against them are not liable to be framed before the Sessions Court. The petitioners can contend that jointer of charges is unjustified and that the trial against them must be conducted only by a Magistrate for which purpose powers under Section 228 Cr.P.C must be invoked and the matter in so far as it relates to the petitioners has to be sent to the learned Magistrate. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the decision in Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police, Chennai [(2004) 8 SCC 100] contends that the petitioners are not liable to stand trial along with the co-accused in view of Section 177 Cr.P.C. 4. The crucial question is whether the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C can or deserves to be invoked by this court at this stage. In every case, where a person can claim discharge or acquittal from the trial court, it is not necessary that this court must invoke its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This is not because this court does not have jurisdictional competence Crl.M.C.No.478/07 3 under Section 482 Cr.P.C; but it is for the court to identify a fit case where the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C can and must be invoked. Normally parties can be relegated to the remedies available under the code and only in an exceptional case where the conscience of the court is justified that the interests of justice would fail or that there would be miscarriage of justice need this court to invoke its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is unnecessary to flood this court with petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C when identical relief can be claimed from the court before which the parties have already entered appearance. There is no exceptional or compelling reasons in this case qualifying such invocation. It is in this view of the matter that I take the view that this is not a case where the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C can or need be invoked. The petitioners can certainly raise the contention before the learned Sessions Judge that charges are not liable to be framed against them and trial is not at any rate liable to be held against them before Sessions Court and they deserve to be tried only before the learned Magistrate. Crl.M.C.No.478/07 4 5. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is, in these circumstances, dismissed but with the above specific observations. The learned Sessions Judge must consider the plea of the petitioners that they do not deserve to stand trial before the learned Sessions Judge. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if unnecessary insistence were made on the personal appearance of the accused by the learned Sessions Judge, it would cause the petitioners great prejudice, hardship and loss. I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would do the same unless absolutely essential. No criminal court need ritualistically insist on the personal presence of the petitioners unless absolutely essential for the progress of the case. ## **(R.BASANT, JUDGE)** jsr Crl.M.C.No.478/07 5 Crl.M.C.No.478/07 6 ## **R.BASANT, J** C.R.R.P.No. ORDER 21ST DAY OF JULY 2006