IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2008 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2329 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.134/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER: ------------ 1. PARAMESWARAN NAIR ,AGED 76 VAYARALAKALAM,.SANKARA BHAVAN, KOTTAYI, PALAKKAD DIVISION. 2. SARASWATHI AMMA,AGED 69, VAYARALAKALAM,.SANKARA BHAVAN, KOTTAYI, PALAKKAD DIVISION. 3. SUJATHA, AGED 37 YEARS W/O. KUTTY KRISHNAN,RAMABHAVAN, PORAYATHU PERIONGOOTU KURISHY, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING KOTTAYI POLICE STATION. 2. JISHA, AGED 27 D/O. JAYARAJAN NAIR, VILAMBARIL HOUSE KUNNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD. BY P.P. SRI. JAI GEORGE. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.2329 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of June, 2008 ORDER The petitioners are the father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the 2nd respondent who had raised an allegation that matrimonial cruelty of the culpable variety was inflicted on her by the petitioners as also her husband. A private complaint filed by her was referred to the police by the learned Magistrate under Sec.156(3) of the Cr.P.C. An F.I.R. was registered. Investigation was conducted. Final report was filed and cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate. The petitioners had appeared before the learned Magistrate and have at that stage come to this Court with this application under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer that the prosecution against them may be quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. Crl.M.C. No. 2329 of 2008 -: 2 :- 2. What is the reason? The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the allegations are false. The petitioners are old and sick. In these circumstances, continuance of the steps for prosecution would work out great prejudice and hardship to the petitioners. The learned counsel relies on the further circumstance that there was delay in lodging the complaint and the complaint was filed only after an application for restitution was filed by the husband of the de facto complainant. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. I have gone through the materials in detail. I shall carefully avoid any detailed discussions on merits about the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that I am not persuaded to agree that there are any circumstances which warrant or justify the invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. I shall not express any opinion on merits as to whether the petitioners are entitled for premature termination of the prosecution initiated against them. I am of opinion that the petitioners must be relegated to seek the ordinary and normal remedies available for them under the Code to claim premature termination of the proceedings. In a case like the instant one, Crl.M.C. No. 2329 of 2008 -: 3 :- they have to resort to the provisions of Sec.239/240 of the Cr.P.C. to claim such premature termination by discharge. 4. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed. I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this Crl.M.C. will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioners to claim discharge/acquittal at the appropriate stage before the court below. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are old and sick. If insistence were made ritualistically on the personal appearance of the petitioners on all dates of posting that would work out great prejudice and hardship to the petitioners. I find no reason why any court should make such insistence on personal appearance when the purpose of the trial does not need the presence of the petitioners. The petitioners can certainly apply to the learned Magistrate for exemption from personal appearance and when such application is made, the learned Magistrate must consider the same on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge Crl.M.C. No. 2329 of 2008 -: 4 :-