IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 2ND ASWINA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3521 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.340/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, THAMARASSERY .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- 1. NIJO @ JOSEPH, S/O. DEVASSY, PULLELI HOUSE, MELOOR, MURINGOOR, CHALAKUDI. 2. DEVASSY, PULLELI HOUSE, MELOOR, MURINGOOR, CHALAKUDI. 3. ANNA, W/O. DEVASSY, PULLELI HOUSE, MELOOR, MURINGOOR, CHALAKUDI. 4. BABY S/O. ANTONY, PALLISSERY HOUSE, KOZHAKKE CHALAKKUDY AMSOM, CHALAKKUDY NORTH. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA RESPONDENTS(S): DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------------------------------------- 1. KURIACHAN, S/O. ITTOOP, PULIMALAYIL HOUSE, KODANCHERY, KOZHIKODE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 3521 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of September, 2008 O R D E R The petitioners, members of a family, face indictment in a prosecution, inter alia, under Section 420 I.P.C. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of the final report submitted by the police after due investigation. Except the first petitioner, the others have already entered appearance and were enlarged on bail. The first petitioner is abroad and coercive processes have been issued against the said petitioner. According to the petitioners, the allegations raised against them are totally false and incorrect. They are raised vexatiously. There is absolutely nothing to show that the allegations against them are true, correct or justifiable. They are groundless. Allegations do not constitute any offence. Proceedings against them may, in these circumstances, be quashed invoking the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is prayed. The petitioners do not deserve Crl.M.C.No. 3521 of 2008 2 to stand the trauma of a criminal trial and they are entitled for premature termination of the proceedings, urges the learned counsel. 2. An indictee facing criminal prosecution is certainly entitled to claim premature termination of the proceedings initiated against him. Normally and ordinarily he must invoke the ordinary provisions of the Code to claim such premature termination of proceedings. Ordinarily the parties should claim premature termination from the Magistrate. In a case instituted upon police report relating to a warrant offence, such premature termination can be claimed by discharge at the stage of Section 239/240 Cr.P.C. 4. Of course, in an exceptional case where the interests of justice so demand compellingly, this court has jurisdictional competence under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to invoke the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction to prematurely terminate the criminal proceedings against indictees. 5. But having considered all the relevant inputs, I must say, without intending to express any opinion on merits, that this is a fit case where the petitioners must be relegated to seek the relief of premature termination by discharge under Section 239/240 Cr.P.C. Crl.M.C.No. 3521 of 2008 3 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that warrant of arrest has been issued against the first petitioner, who is now employed abroad. Unnecessary and needless harassment would result if personal presence of the petitioners is insisted to facilitate consideration of the plea for discharge. I am satisfied that appropriate directions can be issued to safeguard the interests of justice. 9. This Crl.M.C. is allowed in part. The learned Magistrate shall permit the petitioners to appear through counsel and claim discharge at the stage of Section 239/240 Cr.P.C. Only if the learned Magistrate enters a finding that charges are liable to be framed, need the Magistrate insist on the personal presence of the petitioners . Until then they shall be permitted to appear through counsel. This is so in spite of the fact that warrant of arrest is pending against the first petitioner. The warrant of arrest shall not be executed until a decision is taken on the question of discharge under Section 239/240 Cr.P.C. (R. BASANT) Judge tm