IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2008 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3849 of 2008() ---------------------------------- C.C. NO.18/2008 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE'S COURT, KOLLAM. ........ PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- 1. B.L. PRASANTH, S/O.N.C. BOSE, @BOSE LAL N.C BHAVAN, PULIMOOTTIL, MUNDAKKAL, KOLLAM. 2. SEEMA, W/O. B.L. PRASANTH, N.C. BHAVAN, PULIMOOTTIL, MUNDAKKAL, KOLLAM. 3. N.C. BOSE @ BOSE LAL M.C. BHAVAN, PULIMOOTTIL, MUNDAKKAL, KOLLAM. 4. SASIDHARAN PILLAI, S/O. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, SASI BHAVAN, MAYYANADU, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SIVAJI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------ 1. SUSEELA, W/O. CHITHRANGADHAN, SREEPADAM, NEAR SARATH MADAM, S.N. COLLEGE JUNCTION, KOLLAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJED ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 3849 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2008 O R D E R Petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable under Section 468 and 471 read with Section 34 IPC. Altogether there are four accused persons. The crux of the allegations against them is that a forged rent deed was produced by the 2nd petitioner before the court in a proceeding under the Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'DV Act'). The proceedings under the DV Act was initiated by the 2nd petitioner herein against her own father, one Sri.Chitrangadan. The 1st respondent herein is her mother and the wife of the said Chitrangadan, the respondent in the proceedings under the DV Act. In that proceedings the 2nd petitioner produced a rent deed which allegedly is a forged document. That document is purportedly executed by the 2nd petitioner in favour of the 1st respondent herein. Petitioners 1 and 3 are attestors to that rent deed. 4th petitioner herein is a family friend in whose hand the said document is prepared. It is alleged that such document was produced in the proceedings under the DV Act by the 2nd petitioner, who had brought that forged document into existence in Crl.M.C. No. 3849 OF 2008 -:2:- collusion with petitioners 1, 3 & 4. 2. On coming to know of the production of the said document before the learned Magistrate in the proceedings under the DV Act between her daughter-the 2nd petitioner herein and her husband, Chithrangadan, the 1st respondent, has filed a private complaint before the Magistrate which was forwarded by the Magistrate to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Investigation was conducted, cognizance was taken on the basis the final report submitted by police and a Calender Case has been registered. Petitioners have not personally appeared before the Magistrate. They have entered appearance through counsel, it is submitted. 3. Petitioners have now come before this Court with a prayer to quash the proceedings against them. They contend that there is absolutely no justification in the proceedings initiated against them. They are entitled for premature termination of proceedings. The allegations are totally false. Allegations are not supported by materials placed before court. The learned counsel for the petitioner further points out that there are several mis- statements in the final report filed by the police also. In these Crl.M.C. No. 3849 OF 2008 -:3:- circumstances, the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked and premature termination of the unnecessary and underserved prosecution against the petitioners may be brought about, prays the learned counsel. 4. I have considered all the relevant circumstances. Premature termination of proceedings can be claimed by an indictee who does not deserve to stand vexatious criminal proceedings against him. Such premature termination can be claimed at the threshold of the proceedings by such indictee in accordance with ordinary provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In a warrant case instituted upon a final report submitted by police, such premature termination can be claimed by discharge at the stage of 239 Cr.P.C. In an appropriate case this Court certainly has the reservoir of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to invoke its extraordinary inherent jurisdiction in the interests of justice and bring to premature termination an unjustified prosecution. But such extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not to be invoked as a matter of course. Satisfactory, compelling and exceptional Crl.M.C. No. 3849 OF 2008 -:4:- reasons must be shown to exist to invoke such jurisdiction in the interests of justice. In all other cases the parties can be relegated to claim premature termination by discharge before the Magistrate. 5. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am not persuaded to agree that this is a fit case where this Court should undertake the responsibility, of scanning through the entire materials placed, to decide whether premature termination should be brought about or not. That jurisdiction rightly vests with the Magistrate under Section 239 Cr.P.C. I find no exceptional reasons for this Court to take over that jurisdiction. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if unnecessary insistence were made on the personal presence of the petitioners before the learned Magistrate, that would work out great prejudice, hardship and loss. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that the petitioners can be permitted to appear though counsel and stake their plea for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. The court can consider such plea of discharge without insisting on the personal presence of the Crl.M.C. No. 3849 OF 2008 -:5:- petitioners, if they are represented by their counsel. Petitioners plea for discharge will have to be considered on merits. If the learned Magistrate takes the view that charges are liable to be framed against petitioners then only their personal presence need be insisted. Otherwise they can be permitted to be represented through their counsel on all dates of postings. 7. With the above observations, this Crl.M.C is dismissed. I may hasten to observe that I have not intended to express any opinion on merits on the entitlement of the petitioners to be discharged. That plea will have to be considered by the learned Magistrate and appropriate decision taken. R. BASANT, JUDGE ttb Crl.M.C. No. 3849 OF 2008 -:6:- Crl.M.C. No. 3849 OF 2008 -:7:-