IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2008 / 12TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2499 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.685/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... PETITIONER: ------------ 1. SIJO JOSEPH, S/O JOSEH, AGED 25 YEARS, NOW RESIDING AT CHENKOL, P.O. VELLORA, VIA, MATHAMANGALAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. EDAMANA JOSEPH, S/O CHACKO, AGED 60 YEARS, CHENKOL, P.O. VELLORA, VIA MATHAMANGALAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. V.N.GIREESH, S/O NANU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, ADVOCATE, RESIDING AT KUDAMTHADAM OF VAYAKKARA AMSOM, P.O. CHERUPUZHA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 2499 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2008 ORDER The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable under Secs.447, 294(b) and 506(i) of the IPC. The crux of the allegations is that the petitioners trespassed into a property in which the de facto complainant occupies a residential building. They had allegedly interfered with the electricity connection to the house of the de facto complainant. When the de facto complainant questioned them, obscene abuses were allegedly showered on him and he was criminally intimidated. This is the broad allegation made against the petitioners herein. A crime was registered. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. The petitioners have appeared before the learned Magistrate and they have been enlarged on bail. It is at this stage that Crl.M.C. No. 2499 of 2008 -: 2 :- the petitioners have come before this Court with a prayer that the proceedings initiated against them may be brought to premature termination by issue of appropriate directions under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the property in question does not belong to the de facto complainant; but it belongs to the sister-in-law of the de facto complainant. No obscene abuses were showered at any public place and in any view of the matter Secs.294(b) and 447 of the IPC cannot, in these circumstances, apply. So far as the offence under Sec. 506(i) of the IPC is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the offence is non-cognizable. In these circumstances, the learned counsel submits that it would be a traversity of justice to permit the proceedings to continue. The first accused has secured employment abroad and the transparent intention is to vex and harass the 1st respondent to scuttle his prospects in his employment abroad. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in detail. I shall not embark on any detailed discussions on merits about the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say, I am not persuaded to agree that there any circumstances in this case that can justify or Crl.M.C. No. 2499 of 2008 -: 3 :- warrant the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. to bring the proceedings to premature termination. The contentions raised will have to be advanced before the learned Magistrate and appropriate orders must be solicited either at the stage of Sec.258 of the Cr.P.C. to drop the proceedings or at the later stage of trial to claim acquittal. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 1st petitioner has to return to his place of employment abroad. In these circumstances, if his personal presence were to be insisted by the learned Magistrate that would work out great prejudice, hardship and loss to the 1st petitioner. 5. I am satisfied that this petition, in these circumstances, deserves to be dismissed; but appropriate observations/ directions to secure the interests of justice can of course be made. 6. In the result, this petition is dismissed; but with the observation that the petitioners can, notwithstanding the dismissal of this petition, raise all their contentions before the learned Magistrate to claim termination of proceedings under Sec.258 of the Cr.P.C. and also to claim acquittal at later stages of the trial. The petitioners can apply for exemption and the Crl.M.C. No. 2499 of 2008 -: 4 :- learned Magistrate must consider such application for exemption on merits and pass appropriate orders. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I find no reason whatsoever for the learned Magistrate not to grant such application for exemption from personal appearance. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge