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. 5053 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.529/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ALUVA .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.2 --------------------------- R.LOKANANTHAN, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR, KAILASAM, H.NO.3T/2951,PONOTHU ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-17. BY ADV. SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI SRI.R.ANIL SRI.ANIL K.MOHAMMED SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------ 1. A.V.VARGHESE S/O.VAREED, AREEKAL VEEDU, ANGAMALY. 2. STATE,REPRESEN TED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR 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. 5053 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of January, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner, a Chartered Accountant, faces indictment in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. According to the petitioner he has nothing to do with the defacto complainant and his transaction was only with the first accused. On account of some disputes between the first accused and the defacto complainant the petitioner has been unnecessarily dragged into the controversy. Cognizance has been taken against the petitioner and the petitioner is obliged to face the trauma of a criminal prosecution initiated against him. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution against the petitioner may, in these circumstances, be quashed. 2. An indictee facing unjustified and undeserved criminal prosecution can certainly claim premature termination of such proceedings. Ordinarily and normally such premature termination must be claimed according to the ordinary provisions of the Crl.M.C.No. 5053 of 2008 2 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. 4. I am satisfied in the facts and circumstances of this case that the petitioner's plea for premature termination of the prosecution deserves to be considered anxiously. But I am not persuaded to agree that the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can and ought to be invoked. This I am satisfied is a fit case where the petitioner must be relegated to claim the relief of premature termination by discharge under Section 245(2) and if that be not successful under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C. I do further find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that until the question of discharge is decided on merits, the petitioner may not be compelled to endure the trauma of personal appearance. Appropriate safeguards can be insisted. 5. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed,but with the specific observation that the petitioner shall be at liberty to claim discharge Crl.M.C.No. 5053 of 2008 3 under Section 245(2) and if that be not possible under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C. It is further directed that until the question of discharge is decided under Section 245(2) and/or 245(1) Cr.P.C. the personal presence of the petitioner shall not be insisted by the learned Magistrate, if he is represented by a counsel in accordance with law. Unless exceptional and compelling reasons are shown to exist, the learned Magistrate should not insist on the personal presence of the petitioner until the question of discharge is considered and decided. (R. BASANT) Judge tm