SUDARSANAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed u/s.482 of Cr.P.C. to quash Annexure-A final report in Crime No.175/2012 of Chottanikkara Police Station, which was registered for offences punishable u/s.188 IPC and u/s.30 of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" for short), pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kolenchery as C.C.No.1494/2012, by invoking the inherent jurisdiction. Petitioners are accused Nos.5 to 11 in Crime No.175/2012 of Chottanikkara Police Station, which was registered by the Sub Inspector of Police, Chottanikkara for violation of the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet land Act, 2000. Petitioners contended that mandatory provisions were not complied in this case and if trial is proceeded, it amounts to a mere abuse of the process of Court.

(2.) The allegation against the petitioners is that on 30.5.2012 at about 8.45 a.m, while the Sub Inspector of Police, Chottanikkara, was on patrol duty, he found that the property comprised in Re.Sy.No.269/5 in Block No.2 of Kurikkad village, which includes a paddy land as per the revenue records, was converted illegally. There is a prohibition u/s.3 of the Act for conversion of wet land and paddy land and petitioners, who are the owners of the property, ignoring that prohibition, converted the land for other purposes. Immediately, the Sub Inspector of Police, Chottanikkara registered the above crime and after completing investigation, he filed a final report in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kolencherry. In the circumstances, the petitioners approached this Court with this petition.

(3.) The inherent power contemplated under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised only to prevent "abuse of the process" of any court or to secure "the ends of justice". In a case when FIR was registered and the investigation is in progress, it is the responsibility of the Court to consider the face value which constitutes a prima facie case with regard to the allegation. If the allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable and there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the accused, the inherent power has to be exercised. The inherent jurisdiction can be exercised sparingly and carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the test specifically laid down in the Section itself. Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC(Cri) 426held as follows: