IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2008 / 7TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2863 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.51/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, WADAKKANCHERY – CRIME NO.510/07 OF CHERUTHURUTHY POLICE STATION ................................................ PETITIONER: -------------------- THULASEEDHARAN,S/O RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 34 YEARS, KUREEPALI VEEDU, THALASSERY POST, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.E.R.VENKATESWARAN SRI.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENT: ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERUTHURUTHY POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 2863 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2008 ORDER The petitioner faces indictment as 2nd accused in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Secs.467 and 468 read with Sec.34 IPC. Altogether, there are 4 accused persons. The petitioner is the 2nd accused. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police. 2. The crux of the allegations is that all the 4 accused in furtherance of their common intention had committed the culpable conduct of manufacturing forged documents and using the same as genuine. It is unnecessary to advert to the detailed allegations. On the basis of the final report filed, cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner has already entered appearance before the learned Crl.M.C. No. 2863 of 2008 -: 2 :- Magistrate and has been enlarged on bail, it is submitted. 3. The petitioner has come to this Court with a prayer that the powers under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked to bring to premature termination the prosecution launched against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, there is absolutely no data collected which can justify the indictment against the petitioner. The petitioner may hence be saved of the undeserved trauma of such criminal prosecution against him. 4. Though it is contended that there is no material whatsoever against the petitioner, the documents furnished along with the final report by the Investigating Officer to court are not made available to this Court. Premature termination of proceedings can be claimed by an indictee if the allegations against him are totally unjustified. But ordinarily and normally such premature termination can and ought to be claimed under the ordinary provisions in the Code. In a prosecution initiated on the basis of a final report submitted by the police, after due investigation, it is for the indictee to claim such premature termination orodinaorily by discharge at the stage of Sec.239/240 Cr.P.C. Of course, this Court has jurisdictional competence under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. to direct premature termination of proceedings if, in the peculiar facts of Crl.M.C. No. 2863 of 2008 -: 3 :- an exceptional case, such invocation of the powers under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. is found to be necessary. But such powers cannot ordinarily be invoked as a matter of course. Compelling and exceptional reasons must be shown to exist. The mere possibility of the petitioner succeeding in his claim for discharge at the stage of Sec.239 Cr.P.C. is certainly not a sufficient reason ipso facto to justify the invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. 5. I am unable to find any such exceptional reasons in this case. The petitioner, who has already entered appearance before the learned Magistrate, must and can now claim discharge under Sec.239 Cr.P.C. if he is entitled to the same on merits. His plea for such discharge, needless to say, must be considered by the learned Magistrate in detail and appropriate decision taken. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if unnecessary insistence on personal presence of the petitioner were made by the learned Magistrate to consider the plea for discharge, that would cause great hardship and loss to the petitioner. I find no reason why the court must make such ritualistic insistence on appearance of the petitioner for considering the plea for discharge. The petitioner has already Crl.M.C. No. 2863 of 2008 -: 4 :- entered appearance and if so, I am satisfied that there can be a direction that the personal presence of the petitioner need be insisted by the learned Magistrate if necessary only after the plea for discharge is considered under Sec.239/240 Cr.P.C. If and only if the learned Magistrate takes a decision to frame charges against the petitioner, need such personal appearance be insisted. Until then, if he is represented by a counsel, the personal presence of the petitioner shall not be insisted by the learned Magistrate. 7. This Crl.M.C. is, in these circumstances, dismissed with the above observations/directions. I may hasten to observe that I have not chosen to consider the plea for discharge on merits and it is for the petitioner to raise the relevant contentions and for the learned Magistrate to consider such contentions untrammelled by any observations in this order or the dismissal of this Crl.M.C. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge Crl.M.C. No. 2863 of 2008 -: 5 :-