JOMON PUTHANPURACKAL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under S.482 CrPC the petitioner claims himself to be a public interest litigant seeks to quash Annexure C order dated 05/02/2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam dismissing his application (CMP No. 806/08) seeking certain directions to the CBI to conduct further investigation in the "Sr. Abhaya Case" pursuant to the narco analysis test reports. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, observing that the petition was another vain attempt to somehow cling on to the matter, and placing reliance on the observations of this Court in the judgment dated 11/01/2008 in WP (C) 35590 of 2007 dismissed the application warning the petitioner that at present the Magistrate is not mulcting the petitioner with costs for filing the petition in a case where the petitioner has no locus standi.

(2.) I heard Sr. Advocate Sri. K. Ramakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Adv. Sri. M. V. S. Nampoothiri, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the C.B.I. and Adv. Sri. A. X. Varghese appearing for the father of deceased Sr. Abhaya.

(3.) I am afraid that I cannot agree with the above submissions. It may be true that the petitioner had intervened in the proceedings before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and before this Court. It may also be true that during times when the investigation before the concerned agency or proceedings before Court were quiescent the petitioner might have triggered the matter by filing appropriate petitions before the Court. It is easier for any person to intervene in matters involving contemporary public importance and activate the investigating agency and / or the Court to ensure that justice to the aggrieved is quickened. But that does not mean that such persons can, under the garb of espousing a public cause and wearing the mantle of a crusader, offset or supplant the statutory functionaries which have will defined roles to play in a democratic governance. Merely because Courts have in the past entertained certain petitions filed by the petitioner, it does not mean that the petitioner is an indispensable link in the administration of justice or that the system without the petitioner will spell a collapse. As mentioned earlier, anybody can masquerade as a public spirited citizen and meddle with any issue of public importance and indulge in self aggrandizement without being detected. It is very often difficult to gauge the motives of such persons. It is a disturbing development that some men wearing pro bono publico veil indulge in scandalising individuals, constitutional functionaries, other dignitaries and even judges either with flippant or motivated write ups and provocative mock challenges. Courts should be sharp enough to pierce the veil of such dangerous persons and nip their proclivities in the bud in the larger interest of the society rather than ignoring them as scurrilous, influential or incorrigible. Such mock fighters are real foes of the mankind and unless they are identified and their vicious tendencies curbed, they might be let loose among the unsuspecting public with formidable potential to do incalculable harm to the society at large.