IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2008 / 25TH ASWINA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2966 of 2006() ------------------------- CC.343/2003 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONERS: ACCUSED: --------------------------- 1. JEEVESH SHASTRI, KIZHAKKE VELILYAKATH HOUSE, PERINGANDOOR, THRISSUR. 2. THANKAMMA A.K., THEKKEKARA HOUSE, C.R. IYYUNNI ROAD, MYLIPADAM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. STATE-REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. M/S. CALVERY HIRE PURCHASE, CALVERY ROAD, THRISSUR-4, REPRESENTED BY PARTNSER S.V. SAIMON, SRABICAL HOUSE, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.GIKKU JACOB R2 BY ADV.SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA SRI.JOHN.N.O THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/10/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 2966 OF 2006 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of October, 2008 O R D E R The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for the offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 420 IPC. Proceedings have been initiated on the basis of a private complaint. Pre-charge enquiry was conducted and charges were framed. The proceedings were initiated as early as in 2003. Charges were framed under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C in 2005. When the matter reached the stage of trial, i.e.,examination of witnesses, the petitioners have rushed to this Court with this petition with a prayer to quash the proceedings. 2. The petitioners have not challenged the order framing the charge in this private complaint under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C. I find absolutely no justifiable reason at this juncture to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings. Petitioners must take part in the trial and raise all the relevant contentions. 3. One of the petitioners is a woman and insistence on the personal appearance of the petitioners would cause them great Crl.M.C. No. 2966 OF 2006 -:2:- hardship and loss, submits the learned counsel for the petitioners. I find no reason as to why the learned Magistrate should so insist. The petitioners can apply before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders. With the above observations, this Crl.M.C is dismissed. R. BASANT, JUDGE ttb Crl.M.C. No. 2966 OF 2006 -:3:- Crl.M.C. No. 2966 OF 2006 -:4:-