IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2008 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4055 of 2008 ---------------------------------- CC.NO.69/2008 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR. .................... PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED: ------------------------------------- 1. NISHANTH, AGED 26, POOKATTIL HOUSE, PUZHAKKAL VILLAGE, CHOORAKKATTUKARA DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. P.V. SIVARAMAN, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, PUTHUKKATTIL HOUSE, PUZHAKKAL VILLAGE, CHOORAKKATTUKARA DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS. RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. MINI, AGED 39 YEARS, W/O. SOMAN, CHULLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOORKANCHERY, VADOOKKARA .P.O., THRISSUR TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 4055 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of October, 2008 O R D E R The petitioners – a father-son duo – have come before this Court with a prayer that the prosecution initiated against them by the respondent/complainant by filing a private complaint alleging offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. may be quashed. It is contended that the complainant is the wife of the brother-in-law of the second petitioner. There are civil disputes between the parties and the allegations are now raised without any justification with the transparent intention of vexing and harassing the petitioners. It is prayed that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked to prematurely terminate the proceedings against the petitioners. 2. I shall carefully avoid any detailed discussion on merits about the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data pressed into service. Suffice it to say that I am of the opinion that the case of the petitioners that the allegations against Crl.M.C.No. 4055 of 2008 2 them are groundless deserves to be considered carefully by the court below. 3. An indictee facing unjustified and undeserved criminal prosecution can certainly claim premature termination of proceedings. Ordinarily and normally such premature termination must be claimed according to the ordinary provisions of the Code. Of course in an exceptional case, where the interests of justice compellingly demand such a course, this Court has the reservoir of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to invoke the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction and bring to premature end such prosecution. But such powers are not to be invoked as a matter of course. Satisfactory, compelling and exceptional reasons must be shown to exist to justify the resort to such extra ordinary provisions of the Code. 4. In a warrant offence instituted on the basis of a private complaint the accused can claim premature termination of proceedings by discharge at the threshold under Section 245(2) or later after pre- charge enquiry under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C. Ordinarily and normally an accused, who has such equally efficacious alternative remedy, must be relegated to claim the relief of premature termination in accordance Crl.M.C.No. 4055 of 2008 3 with the ordinary provisions of the Code. In the instant case I am satisfied that no exceptional reasons are there, which can justify the invocation of the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The counsel submits that if personal presence of the petitioners were insisted by the trial court before a decision is taken to frame charges against them, that would result in great prejudice and hardship. Appropriate directions can of course be issued. 5. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed. I may hasten to observe that the petitioners shall be entitled to claim discharge at the stage of Section 245(2) and/or 245(1) Cr.P.C. Until the court takes a decision that charges are liable to be framed under Section 246 Cr.P.C, the petitioners shall be permitted to appear through their counsel. If they are represented by their counsel, their personal presence need not be insisted until the court takes a decision to frame charge under Section 246 Cr.P.C. (R. BASANT) Judge tm