LEENA ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in a prosecution - C.C.No.792/03,pending before theJudicialMagistrate ofthe First Class-III, Thiruvananthapuram, for the offences punishable, inter alia, under Secs.380, 447 and 188 read with Sec.34 of the IPC.Cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation.Cognizance was taken as early as in 2003 and the petitioners have at this belated hour come to this Court with this Crl.M.C. Why did the petitioners not come earlier before this Court? It is conceded that the petitioners have appeared before the learned Magistrate;that the learned Magistrate, after hearing the parties, had framed charges against the petitioners. The petitioners have admittedly not challenged the charges framed by the learned Magistrate by invoking the revisional jurisdiction vested in the superior courts.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that essentially and basically theprosecution is based onan interim order passed by the civil court. He contends that the prosecution under Sec.188 of the IPC was not maintainable inasmuch as the complaint had not beenmade by the authority which passed the order.

(3.) I must alertly remind myself that the prayer is to invoke the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. It is an extraordinary inherent jurisdiction which is available to this Court under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. Such jurisdiction is not to be invoked, as a matter of course, and is liable to be invoked sparingly in exceptional cases in aid of justice.