IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2009 / 26TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 243 of 2009() ------------------------ C.C.NO.97/08 OF C.J.M COURT, KOTTAYAM PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- 1. P.T.THOMAS,AGED 73 YEARS,S/O.THOMAS THOMAS,PUNNAMMOOTTIL, MUTTAMBALAM.P.O,KOTTAYAM 686004. 2. SUNITHA ANNIE CHERIAN,PERKKATTUCHERY VILLA,KEEZHILLAM.P.O,PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.JAYAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------- 1. ELVINA ABRAHAM,MANIMALETH HOUSE, MUTTAMBALAM,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.686004. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP; BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.243 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of January, 2009 ORDER Petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 498 A r/w 34 I.P.C. Altogether there are 4 accused persons. The 1st accused is a Post graduate Doctor who is working abroad. The 2nd accused, the 1st petitioner herein is the father of the 1st accused. Accused 3 and 4 are the sisters of the 1st accused. Allegations of matrimonial cruelty of the culpable variety are raised against the accused persons by the defacto complainant who is the wife of the 1st accused. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. The petitioners have been granted anticipatory bail already. 2. The petitioners have at this juncture come to this Court with a plea that the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to quash the prosecution in so far as it relates to the petitioners. The petitioners are absolutely innocent. Vague and inconclusive allegations are raised against the petitioners. The petitioners do Crl.M.C. No.243 of 2009 2 not deserve to stand the trauma of such an unworthy prosecution. They are entitled to have the proceedings against them prematurely terminated, contends the learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. Premature termination of an undeserved criminal prosecution can certainly be claimed by an indictee. But normally and ordinarily such premature termination must be claimed at the threshold before the court which has taken cognizance. In a warrant offence where cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police, such premature termination must ordinarily be claimed at the stage of Section 239/240 Cr.P.C by discharge. Of course this Court has the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction in an appropriate case to act in the interests of justice and bring such undeserved criminal prosecution to premature termination. But such course is to be adopted only if there are sufficient, satisfactory and exceptional reasons to justify resort to such powers. Invocation of such powers cannot be a matter of course. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am unable to find any such exceptional reasons. I am satisfied that the petitioners must be relegated to claim such premature Crl.M.C. No.243 of 2009 3 termination before the learned Magistrate at the stage of Sections 239/240 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate must consider such plea for discharge on merits and expeditiously. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are already on anticipatory bail and that great inconvenience and hardship would result if the personal presence of the petitioners were insisted until the plea of discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C is considered and answered by the learned Magistrate. I find merit in that prayer. Appropriate observations/directions can be issued. 6. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C is dismissed; b) But the dismissal is with a specific observation that the petitioners shall be entitled to claim premature termination by discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C and that plea has to be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits and expeditiously; c) It is further directed that until that plea of discharge is considered and a decision taken, the petitioners shall be permitted by the learned Magistrate to appear before him through counsel. If the petitioners are represented by their Crl.M.C. No.243 of 2009 4 counsel, the learned Magistrate shall not insist on their personal appearance until a decision is taken on the question of framing charges and it is decided that charges are liable to be framed. 7. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioners. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-