IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2009 / 15TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 5050 of 2008() ------------------------- CRIME NO. 376/05 OF MAVELIKKARA POLICE STATION CC.373/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MAVELIKKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): 1ST ACCUSED -------------------------- SANALKUMAR, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.RMACHANDRAKARNAWAR, SAGEETHE VEEDU, WARD 14, CHETTIKULANGARA, KANNAMANGALAM, MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA REP.BY S.I OF POLICE, MAVELIKKARA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 5050 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of January, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment as the sole accused in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 452 r/w. 149 I.P.C. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. He is the sole accused named in the charge sheet also, it is submitted 2. According to the petitioner the allegations against him are totally false and unjustified. The other co-accused have not been identified at all. In these circumstances powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash the proceedings against the petitioner, it is prayed. 3. An indictee facing criminal prosecution is certainly entitled to claim premature termination of the proceedings initiated against him. Such premature termination must ordinarily be claimed at the threshold in accordance with the ordinary provisions of the Code. In an exceptional case where Crl.M.C.No. 5050 of 2008 2 the interests of justice so demand compellingly, this court has jurisdictional competence under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to invoke the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction to prematurely terminate the criminal proceedings against an indictee. But such extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction is to be invoked only sparingly and in aid of justice. The same cannot be invoked as a matter of course. In the facts and circumstances of this case I do not find any reason to justify the invocation of such inherent jurisdiction. In a case like the instant one, the petitioner must claim premature termination by discharge under Section 239/240 Cr.P.C. I find no reason to invoke the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction. The petitioner is relegated to claim premature termination by discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. 4. This Crl.M.C. is dismissed. But I make it clear that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to claim premature termination by discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that charges have not been framed by the court below. (R. BASANT) Judge tm Crl.M.C.No. 5050 of 2008 3