IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2009 / 2ND MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 328 of 2009() --------------------------------- CC.1/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ------------------------- 1. ANILA MATHEW W/O.MATHEW M.GEORGE, MALIAKKAL HOUSE, KUMARAKOM. 2. MATHEW M.GEORGE, MALIAKKAL HOUSE, KUMARAKOM. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KUMARAKOM POLICE STATION, KUMARAKOM, KOTTAYAM. 3. MR.JAMES JOSEPH, KANDATHIL PARAMBIL KUMARAKOM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 328 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2009 O R D E R The petitioners are spouses and they face indictment in a prosecution under Section 420 I.P.C. Cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation of a crime. That crime, in turn, was registered on the basis of a private complaint filed before the learned Magistrate and referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The petitioners have already entered appearance before the learned Magistrate. Charges have not been framed yet. The matter stands posted for framing charge, submits the counsel. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the allegations are totally incorrect and false and do not reveal the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. The petitioners do not deserve to stand the trauma of a criminal trial. In these circumstances the proceedings may be quashed, it is prayed. Crl.M.C.No. 328 of 2009 2 3. An indictee facing criminal prosecution is certainly entitled to claim premature termination of the proceedings initiated against him. Such premature termination must ordinarily be claimed in accordance with the ordinary provisions of the Code. In a prosecution for a warrant offence initiated on the basis of the final report submitted by the police, such premature termination can be claimed by discharge under Section 239/240 Cr.P.C. Of course, in an exceptional case where the interests of justice so demand compellingly, this court has jurisdictional competence under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to invoke the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction to prematurely terminate the criminal proceedings against an indictee. 4. I take note of the fact that the cognizance was taken as early as in 2007. I take note of the fact that the petitioners have already entered appearance and have been enlarged on bail. I am satisfied that this is an eminently fit case where the petitioners must be relegated to claim the relief of premature termination by discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. I do not find any reasons to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Crl.M.C.No. 328 of 2009 3 4. This Crl.M.C. is dismissed, but with the specific observation that the petitioners shall be entitled to raise the plea of discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and the learned Magistrate must now consider that plea and take appropriate decision. I do further direct that the personal presence of the petitioners shall not be insisted by the learned Magistrate for hearing the plea of discharge, if the petitioners are represented by their counsel. Their personal presence need not be insisted until a decision is taken on the question of framing charge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Needless to say, such decision can be challenged before this Court in revision, if the petitioners are not satisfied about such decision. 5. Hand over the order. (R. BASANT) Judge tm