This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash Annexure-A4 FIR in crime No.1136/2013 of Punaloor police station which was registered under Sections 268, 269, 272 of the IPC r/w. 118 (e) of the Kerala Police Act which is pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Punalur. 2. The petitioners are the accused in the above case which was charge sheeted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Punalur Police Station. The petitioners contended that they are employees of Dr. J. Seetharaman, proprietor of an Ayurvedic research and manufacturing company and the works are carried out on the strength of necessary licenses and the company has got license from the Pollution Control Board for disposal of various wastes. He further contended that Dr.Seetharaman who is the proprietor of the unit is a bonafide manufacturer of ayurvedic products under whom the petitioners are working and no offence was committed as alleged by the petitioners. But when the petitioners were engaged in the disposal of waste, the second respondent arrested the petitioners and registered the above crime. They deposited waste as per the directions issued by the Pollution Control Board in the proprietor's property and prima facie no case is made out against the petitioners and if trial is proceeded it will cause irreparable injury and gross hardship to them. Hence, the petitioners pray to quash Annexure A4 by invoking inherent jurisdiction.
3. The second respondent filed a prosecution against the petitioners on the ground that they disposed waste in a public place creating danger to the public and thereby affecting the safety of the society. In the circumstance, the Punalur police registered the above crime and after investigation a final report was filed before the court. The case is pending as C.C. No.1136/2013.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the above contention and contended that they deposited waste near the mortuary of the Punalur Taluk Hospital.
5. Inherent jurisdiction u/s.482 of the Cr.P.C. can be invoked only for the three grounds mentioned therein, i.e. to make such orders as may be necessary to “give effect to any order” under this Code, or to prevent “abuse of the process” of any court or to secure “the ends of justice”.
6. The allegation against the petitioners is that they deposited waste in a property which is near to the mortuary of the Taluk Hospital, Punalur. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that manufacturing of ayurvedic medicine is as per Annexure-A1 license issued by the Kerala State Drugs Control Administration. Annexure-A2 is the license issued by the Punalur Municipality to the proprietor and Annexure-A3 is the license issued from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board for disposal of various types of waste from the Unit. A site plan is also attached along with Annexure-A3. The petitioners contended that the proprietor owns property near the Taluk Hospital where they deposited the waste of the ayurvedic medicine alone which is not a public nuisance. It is true that in the aforesaid crime No.1136/2013 registered against the petitioners, the second respondent conducted a detailed investigation.
7. From the available documents it is found that prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. this court cannot ordinarily conduct an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or the allegations against the petitioners are sustainable or not. Since I cannot conduct an enquiry with regard to the evidentiary value of the documents produced by the petitioners they can produce those documents before the trial court which is the function of the trial judge. When prima facie case is made out, I am not inclined to give a direction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Apex Court in State of Haryana v.
Bhajanlal, [1992 SCC (Crl) 426] laid down the parameters for invoking inherent jurisdiction.
8. Considering the arguments advanced by both counsel, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction. Hence the petition is dismissed.
The trial court shall dispose of the matter within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
P.D. RAJAN,
JUDGE
//True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/