IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2008 / 5TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2404 of 2008() ------------------------- PETITIONER: ACCUSED NO.1: ------------------------- JOY RODRIGUES, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.VICTOR, ACARIA ARCADE, AYYAPPANKAVU, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------------------------- 1. SAJI GARVASIS , S/O.GARVASIS, VELLAMATTATHIL HOUSE, KULATHUKAVALA, KOTHANELLOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY P.P. SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 2404 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of June, 2008 ORDER The petitioner is the 1st accused of the two accused persons facing indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Secs.417 and 420 of the IPC. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation. According to the petitioner, this vexatious criminal proceedings have been initiated only to harass the petitioner and as a counter blast of a prosecution under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act initiated against the de facto complainant. The prosecution under Sec.138 of the N.I. Act is pending also. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the proceedings against the petitioner may be quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. Crl.M.C. No. 2404 of 2008 -: 2 :- 2. Premature termination of the criminal prosecutions can be sought by an indictee by resort to the ordinary provisions of the Code. When cognizance is taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police in a warrant case, such premature termination can be claimed under Sec.239/240 of the Cr.P.C. In every case where such premature termination is a possibility, it is not necessary for this Court to invoke its extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. Ordinarily and normally parties must be left to seek the remedy of premature termination under the ordinary provisions of the Code. Of course, in an extraordinary case, when interests of justice compellingly demand such course, invocation of the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. can, of course, be done. 3. Having considered all the relevant circumstances in this case, I am of opinion that the petitioner can be left and relegated to claim premature termination by discharge under Sec.239/240 of the Cr.P.C. I find no reason to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that unnecessary insistence on the personal presence of the petitioner to facilitate such claim for discharge would cause great hardship, prejudice and loss to the petitioner. Appropriate Crl.M.C. No. 2404 of 2008 -: 3 :- safeguards can, in these circumstances, be insisted. 5. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed; but with the specific observation that the petitioner shall be entitled to appear though his counsel and claim discharge under Sec.239/240 of the Cr.P.C. Until a decision is taken that the charges are liable to be framed, the personal presence of the petitioner shall not be insisted by the learned Magistrate. Till then, the petitioner shall be permitted to appear through pleader and advance his plea for discharge. All the relevant circumstances, including the pendency of Sec.138 of the N.I. Act will, no doubt, be taken into consideration by the learned Magistrate. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge