IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 5TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 14TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3428 of 2008() -------------------------------------- (C.C.NO.663/2000 OF JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY) PETITIONER: ACCUSED NO.4: ---------------------------------------------- P.C.SASINDRAN, S/O.P.C.BHASKARAN, RESIDING AT 'SATHYA', P.O.TEMPLE GATE, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. (PARTNER, M/S. WINGS, A.V.K.NAIR ROAD, THALASSERY). BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE: -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE CANNANORE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., THALASSERY BRANCH, REP. BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER K.M.ANANDAN, S/O.P.KUNHAMBU, RESIDING AT KAILAS BHAVAN, MANGATTIDAM P.O., KUTHUPARAMBA (VIA), KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 3428 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of September, 2008 ORDER The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Sec.420 read with Sec.34 IPC. The petitioner was arrayed as accused No.4. Cognizance was taken on the basis of a private complaint filed by the respondent/complainant. 2. The petitioner has not appeared before the learned Magistrate so far. The co-accused, who faced trial, were tried and ultimately found not guilty and acquitted. According to the petitioner, the allegations, even if accepted in toto, will not constitute any offence and the allegation against him is groundless. In these circumstances, the petitioner prays that powers under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. Crl.M.C. No. 3428 of 2008 -: 2 :- 3. An indictee, who faces unjustified criminal proceedings against him, can certainly claim premature termination of the proceedings. He can pray that he may be saved from the ordeal and undeserved trauma and tedium of a criminal trial. But ordinarily and normally, such premature termination can be claimed in accordance with the provisions of the Code. In a private complaint alleging commission of a warrant offence, such premature termination can ordinarily be claimed at the stage of Sec.245(2) or later at the stage of Sec.245(1) Cr.P.C. Of course, in an exceptional case, in the interests of justice, this Court has for it the jurisdiction reserved under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in exercise of its extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. But such extraordinary inherent jurisdiction is not to be invoked as a matter of course. Compelling and satisfactory reasons must be shown to exist. I am unable to find any such reasons which can justify the invocation of such jurisdiction of this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to appear before the learned Magistrate and seek discharge under Sec.245(2) and/or 245(1) Cr.P.C. But the petitioner is now employed abroad. Great hardship and difficulties would follow if it were insisted that the personal presence of the petitioner is necessary to facilitate the claim for Crl.M.C. No. 3428 of 2008 -: 3 :- such discharge. It is, in these circumstances, prayed that appropriate directions may be issued to facilitate appearance of the petitioner through pleader and claim discharge. 5. I am satisfied that this Crl.M.C only deserves to be dismissed. But I am however satisfied that appropriate observations can be made to secure the interests of the petitioner. 6. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed; but with the specific observation that the if the petitioner appears through counsel before the learned Magistrate and seeks discharge under Sec.245(2) and/or Sec.245(1) Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate shall not insist on the personal presence of the petitioner. Only if the learned Magistrate feels that charges are liable to be framed under Sec.246 Cr.P.C. need the personal presence of the petitioner be insisted. Until such time, if he is represented by counsel, his personal presence need not be insisted. If the petitioner so appears through counsel before the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate shall direct withdrawal of coercive processes issued against him. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge Crl.M.C. No. 3428 of 2008 -: 4 :-