IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2008 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1877 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.76/2006 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. RAJAN VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE, AGED 58, PANAKKAMATTATH VALAYIL HOUSE, KADAPPRA VILLAGE, NIRANAM BHAGOM, PATTANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. NIRMALA RAJAN, W/O.RAJAN VARGHESE, AGED 52,PANAKKAMATTATH VALAYIL HOUSE, KADAPPRA VILLAGE, NIRANAM BHAGOM, PATTANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.TOM K.THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. K.V.THOMAS, S/O.VARGHESE, AGED THONDITHRAPARAMBIL HOUSE,THIRUVANDOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANDOOR MURI, CHENGANOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2008, HE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 1877 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2008 O R D E R The petitioners are accused 1 and 2 and they along with the 3rd accused face indictment for offences punishable inter alia under Sections 120(B), 465 and 468 IPC. The allegation against the accused persons is that they had forged the signature of the de facto complainant in a trust deed and have used the same as genuine. A crime was registered, investigation was conducted and final report has been filed. Cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. Petitioners have also appeared before the learned Magistrate. They have been enlarged on bail also. At this stage the petitioners have come to this Court with a prayer that powers under Section 482 may invoked to quash the proceedings against them. 2. What is the reason? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. The materials relied on by the Investigator even if accepted in toto can only show that the petitioners were also signatories to the allegedly forged document along with some others. The counsel Crl.M.C. No. 1877 OF 2008 2 argues that there is nothing to show that it was the petitioners who forged the signature of the de facto complainant in the document in question. Premature termination of proceedings by invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C is thus prayed. 3. I must alertly remind myself about the nature, quality and contours of my jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. An accused person who feels that he is unjustly charge sheeted by the police is entitled under the Code of Criminal Procedure to claim premature termination of proceedings. Ordinarily and normally such an indictee must resort to the procedure available under the Code to claim such premature termination of proceedings. Not that, this Court does not have jurisdictional competence in an appropriate case to invoke powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C and bring to premature termination of such proceedings; be sufficient and compelling reasons must be shown to exist to justify invocation of such extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am not persuaded to think that this is a fit case where such powers can or ought to be invoked. The petitioners, who have already been Crl.M.C. No. 1877 OF 2008 3 arrested and enlarged on bail by the learned Magistrate, must be directed to approach the learned Magistrate and claim premature termination of proceedings by discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. At the stage under Section 239/240 Cr.P.C, the learned Magistrate must consider the claim of the petitioners for discharge and take appropriate decision in the matter on merits. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if insistence were made on the personal appearance of the petitioners who have already been enlarged on bail on all posting dates, serious hardship ad prejudice shall be caused to the petitioners. I find no reason why such ritualistic personal appearance of the petitioners should be insisted by any court. Petitioners can claim and the learned Magistrate allow such request to be represented by their counsel, till a decision is taken on the question of charge/discharge under Section 239/240. 6. In the above circumstances, the Crl.M.C is dismissed with the above observation. R. BASANT, JUDGE ttb Crl.M.C. No. 1877 OF 2008 4 Crl.M.C. No. 1877 OF 2008 5 Crl.M.C. No. 1877 OF 2008 6