IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 19TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 302 of 2008() ------------------------ SC.804/2007 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, ATTINGAL .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- B.BOSE, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, SREENILAYAM, CHENTHI JUNCTION, PONGANMOODU, PULLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENTS: STATE ------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. (CRIME NO.517 OF 2006 OF KAZHAKKOOTTAM POLICE STATION). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.K.SURESH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.No.302 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of February, 2008 ORDER This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed by the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this Court to quash a prosecution under Section 376 I.P.C entered against him. The petitioner faces the allegation that he had committed rape on the defacto complainant, a co-worker of his, in the Government Secretariat, Trivandrum on 05.02.06, the complaint having made about that alleged indiscretion only on 03.11.06. 2. Investigation was conducted. Final report was filed. Cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate. Committal proceedings is registered. The case was committed to the Court of Session. The Sessions Court received the case and numbered the same as S.C.804 of 2007. The petitioner is on bail and he has already received summons to appear before the learned Sessions Judge. 3. It is at this juncture that the petitioner has come to this Court with the prayer that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to quash the proceedings. Crl.M.C.No.302 of 2008 2 4. I have no doubt that this Court has jurisdictional competence in an appropriate case to quash the proceedings initiated notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner has other remedies under law. The question is not one of lack of jurisdictional competence but the short question is whether this is a fit case where such powers can or ought to be invoked. 5. The Code of Criminal Procedure provides for premature termination of proceedings initiated against an indictee who does not deserve to stand trial. In a Sessions Case, the provisions appear in Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. The premature termination of proceedings can be claimed by an indictee if he is able to satisfy the court that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against such indictee. The ambit and sweep of the expression `sufficient ground for proceeding' has been the subject matter of various binding precedents also. 6. Normally and ordinarily an indictee who wants to claim premature termination of proceedings against him must resort to the provisions in the Code for the said purpose. Of course in an extraordinary case where the interests of justice compelling demand such course, this Court can invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C or the constitutional jurisdiction under Article Crl.M.C.No.302 of 2008 3 226/227 to quash the proceedings. But the question is whether this a fit case where the party who has a right under Section 227/228 Cr.P.C to claim discharge must be permitted to raise such contention in this proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. I shall not express any opinion on merits about the justifiability of the indictment. Suffice it to say that I am not persuaded to agree that there is any reason for this Court at this stage to invoke the powers under Article 226/227 or Section 482 Cr.P.C to bring to premature termination the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. 8. The petitioner can appear before the learned Sessions Judge. The petitioner can raise the plea that he is entitled to be discharged under Section 227 Cr.P.C. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I need only mention that the learned Judge must apply his mind to the question seriously and take a decision as to whether the petitioner deserves to stand the trauma of further proceedings in the trial. I shall stop short there and leave it to the learned Sessions Judge to consider the matter properly and in accordance with law under Section 227/228 Cr.P.C. Crl.M.C.No.302 of 2008 4 9. This petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observations. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is already on bail granted by the committal court. He prays that unnecessary insistence on personal appearance of the petitioner may not be made by the learned Sessions Judge. It is for the petitioner to appear before the learned Sessions Judge and claim exemption from appearance. Until the decision on the question of charge/discharge is taken, I can find no reason why the learned Sessions Judge should ritualistically insist on appearance of the petitioner on all dates of posting. The petitioner's application for exemption and for permission to appear through counsel must be considered by the learned Sessions Judge in accordance with law. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-