IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2008 / 25TH ASWINA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3874 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.338/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NOS.1 to 9 ------------------------------------- 1. B.T.HAJIRA, AGED 65 YEARS, D/O. LATE ABDURAHIMAN, RESIDING AT HAJARAS, NEERCHAL, KANNUR CITY, KANNUR. 2. B.T.KHAYARUNNISA, AGED 56 YEARS, D/O. ABDURAHIMAN, RESIDING AT NEERCHAL, KANNUR CITY, KANNUR. 3. B.T.ZEENATH, AGED 40 YEARS, D/O.HAJIRA, RESIDING AT NEERCHAL, KANNUR CITY,KANNUR 4. B.T.UMMES, AGED 38 YEARS, D/O.HAJIRA, RESIDING AT NEERCHAL, KANNUR CITY, KANNUR. 5. B.T.ASHIQUE, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. HAJIRA, RESIDING AT NEERCHAL, KANNUR CITY, KANNUR. 6. B.T.RAISE, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. HAJIRA RESIDING AT NEERCHAL, KANNUR CITY, KANNUR. 7. MUHAMMED NAJEEB, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. AYISABI, RESIDING AT NEERCHAL, KANNUR CITY, KANNUR. 8. P.P.K.RASHEEDA, AGED 36 D/O.NABEESUMMA, MATTOOL AMSOM, DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 9. B.T.ABDUL SATHAR, AGED 56 YEARS, ADVOCATE, S/O. HUSAIN KUNHI, 'SOODA'S', PANANKAVU, CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. PILAKKEEL PALLIKKANDI RASIYA, W/O. ABDUL SATHAR, PILAKKEEL PALLIKKANDI HOUSE, KANNUR AMSOM, THAYATHERU DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3874 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of October 2008 O R D E R The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. To quash the F.I.R, the petitioners have come to this court and the said petition was dismissed on the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that a final report has already been filed. The petitioners have already appeared before the learned Magistrate through counsel, it is submitted. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations raised are totally unsustainable. The allegations are raised in respect of a transaction which took place in 1993. The de facto complainant is making use of his influence with the police to vex and harass the petitioners. The allegations raised are groundless. The petitioners do not deserve to stand the trauma of a criminal prosecution. Proceedings may be prematurely terminated by invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. An indictee who is constrained to face unjustified indictment is certainly entitled to claim premature termination of Crl.M.C.No.3874/08 2 the proceedings against him. In a prosecution instituted on the basis of a police charge raising allegations of warrant offences against an indictee, such premature termination can ordinarily be claimed by invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 239 Cr.P.C to discharge the accused. If the learned Magistrate finds that the allegations are groundless, the petitioners are entitled for discharge. Such order framing charge/discharge is revisable also, it is by now trite. 3. Ordinarily and normally, a person entitled to claim premature termination must be relegated to claim such premature termination under the ordinary provisions of the Code. Of course, powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C are available with this court. In an appropriate case, where the interests of justice so warrant, such powers can be invoked to quash the proceedings notwithstanding the availability of the option for the indictee to claim discharge. But such extraordinary inherent jurisdiction is not to be invoked as a matter of course. Satisfactory, compelling and exceptional reasons must be shown to exist as to why this court must invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C and not relegate the parties to claim discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Crl.M.C.No.3874/08 3 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in detail, I am unable to perceive any such circumstance available in this case which should prompt me to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. This, I am satisfied is an eminently fit case where the petitioners/indictees must be left to claim premature termination by discharge at the stage of Section 239 Cr.P.C before the learned Magistrate. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if the personal presence of the petitioners were insisted for hearing on the question of discharge, that would work out great prejudice and hardship to the petitioners. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that there can be a direction to the learned Magistrate to permit the petitioners to be represented by their counsel until a decision is taken on the question of discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Only if the learned Magistrate takes the decision that charges are liable to be framed, nned the personal presence of the petitioners be insisted. Until then, they shall be permitted to be represented by their counsel. 6. With this observation, this petition is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.3874/08 4 Crl.M.C.No.3874/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008