SHAHIDA BEEVI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The petitioner is the second accused and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. against the petitioner also. Such cognizance has been taken on the basis of a private complaint filed by the respondent/complainant and after conducting an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Investigation has also been conducted under Section 202 Cr.P.C. before cognizance was taken.

(2.) The petitioner has received summons. She has not appeared before the learned Magistrate. She has rushed to this court with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that cognizance does not deserve to be taken against the petitioner. No satisfactory allegations have been raised against the petitioner. If at all only a civil liability is revealed. In these circumstances initiation of proceedings amount to abuse of process of the court. The same may be prevented by invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., submits the learned counsel.

(3.) I have no hesitation to agree that this Court has jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to deal with such a situation. But the crucial question is whether this is a fit case in which such extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction ought to be invoked. In every case where discharge under Section 245(2) or 245(1) Cr.P.C. or a later acquittal is a possibility, this court will not be justified in invoking such jurisdiction. Has justice failed? Has there been failure/miscarriage of justice? These are the crucial questions while considering the invocation of the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.