IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2008 / 16TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2520 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.78/2001 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: ------------ K.V.ALICE, W/O.JOSE, AGED 43 YEARS, KANJIRAPPARAMBIL, KAIPPARAMBU VILLAGE, TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.M.RAFIQ RESPONDENTS: STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. JOSEPH, S/O.LONAPPAN, KOZHALIPARAMBIL, OLLUR.P.O, TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C No.2520 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July, 2008 ORDER Petitioner is the 3rd accused in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 120 B, 468 and 379 I.P.C. Cognizance was taken as early as in 2001. The petitioner has, at this stage, come to this Court with a prayer that the prosecution against him may be quashed. 2. What is the reason for the petitioner coming to this Court with this prayer for quashing the proceedings when prosecution was launched as early as in 2001 ? Has not the court below framed charges ? Did the petitioner claim discharge ? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for no fault of the petitioner herein, he has not been heard and charges against him have not been framed so far. Two of the co-accused have come before this Court claiming quashing of proceedings and by common order dated 05.02.08 in Crl.M.C.Nos.3754 of 2002 and 8582 of 2001, the said applications were closed with the direction that such accused/petitioners can claim discharge if so advised. They can raise all their contentions before the learned Magistrate, it was held. Crl.M.C No.2520 of 2008 2 3. In the facts and circumstances of this case I observe that identical directions can be issued in favour of the petitioner herein also. In as much as charge is said to have been not framed though a period of about 7 years have elapsed from the date of cognizance, I am satisfied that the petitioner can be relegated to claim his relief for premature termination of proceedings by staking a claim for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. No permission of this Court is necessary to claim discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Petitioner has the right under the Code to claim such premature termination by discharge. The petitioner can certainly press his claim for discharge before the learned Magistrate. Needless to say, such claim for discharge, if raised, must be considered and disposed of in accordance with Section 239/240 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the petitioner is already on bail. The petitioner apprehends that his personal appearance may be insisted by the learned Magistrate for hearing on the question of charge. I find no reason as to why such insistence should be made. The petitioner can apply before the learned Magistrate for exemption from personal appearance on such dates when the matter is posted for hearing on the question of framing charge. His personal presence need not be insisted until Crl.M.C No.2520 of 2008 3 the learned Magistrate comes to a conclusion that charges are liable to be framed. If the same is not essential for the progress of the case, personal presence of an indictee need not be insisted. This has been made clear in many decisions and I find no reason why the learned Magistrate should unnecessarily insist on the personal presence of the petitioner on all dates of posting. 4. This Crl.M.C is dismissed with the above observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-