IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2009 / 11TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4883 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.445/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ADIMALI .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- JAMES APUL @ JAMES PAULOSE S/O MATHAI, AGED 56 YEARS, MOLATH VEEDU, DEVIKULAM 685 613. BY ADV. SRI.N.M.VARGHESE SRI.ROY THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLATHOOVAL POLICE STATION,VELLATHOOVAL (THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA) 2. SHEELA KUMARI, W/O.NAKULAN THAZHATHU PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE SALIYAMPARA KARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. NAKULAN, S/O. NARAYANAN THAZHATHU PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE SALIYAMPARA KARA, KUNCHITHANNI PO, IDUKKI DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4883 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of January 2009 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation in a crime. That crime, in turn, has been registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the de facto complainant before the learned Magistrate and referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 2. According to the petitioner, the allegations are totally false. They are raised with vexatious intent. In the private complaint, the petitioner and his wife were arrayed as accused. The police, after investigation, have filed final report only against the petitioner. The petitioner's wife has been deleted from the array of accused. The allegations do not at all constitute an offence and the charges raised are groundless. In these circumstances, the petitioner may be saved of the trauma of undeserved criminal prosecution by premature termination of proceedings invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C, prays the learned counsel for the petitioner. Crl.M.C.No.4892/08 2 3. The accused facing undeserved criminal prosecution can certainly claim premature termination of proceedings. Such premature termination of proceedings must normally and ordinarily be claimed under the ordinary provisions of the code of Criminal Procedure. In a warrant offence, cognizance in which has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by police, such premature termination can be claimed under Section 239 Cr.P.C by discharge. This court does, of course, have extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to bring to premature termination such undeserved prosecutions. But such extraordinary inherent jurisdiction is to be invoked only sparingly and in exceptional cases. That too, if compelling reasons are there. It is not to be invoked as a matter of course. 4. In the facts and circumstances of this case, though I find that the petitioner's plea for premature termination deserve to be considered anxiously under Section 239 Cr.P.C, I am not persuaded to agree that there is sufficient justification to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner, I am satisfied, must be relegated to claim premature termination by discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Crl.M.C.No.4892/08 3 5. In the result, this petition is dismissed. But I may hasten to observe that the the dismissal of this Crl.M.C will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to claim premature termination by discharge at the stage of 239/240 Cr.P.C. Such plea has to be considered anxiously by the learned Magistrate and appropriate decision must be taken. 6. If the petitioner is already on bail, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner's personal presence need not be ritualistically insisted to enable him to claim premature termination by discharge. If the petitioner is already on bail, he can be permitted to be represented by his counsel until a decision is taken on the question of framing charge. Only if the learned Magistrate takes the decision that charges are liable to be framed, need the personal presence of the petitioner be insisted. Until then, he shall be permitted to be represented by his counsel if he is already on bail. Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Crl.M.C.No.4892/08 4 Crl.M.C.No.4892/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008