IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2008 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4831 of 2008() ---------------------------------- C.C. NO.565/2002 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM. ........... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.3: ---------------------------- V.K.SATHYAJITH, AGED 37 YEARS, ADVOCATE, S/O.V.R.KESAVAN, SARADA BHAVAN, THORAVU NORTH, PUDUKKAD, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS: ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. P.A.HAMZAKOYA, S/O.LATE M.ABDUL KHADER, 'MEHRAB', HOUSE NO.VI/233, KADUNGALLUR ROAD, THOTTAKKATTUKARA, ALUVA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.4831 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of December, 2008 ORDER Petitioner faces indictment as the 3rd accused in a prosecution under Section 500 I.P.C. Altogether there are 5 accused persons. 2 of them had come to this Court earlier and as per order in Crl.M.C.No.8842 of 2002, the same was dismissed on 07.06.05. 2 other accused came before this Court with Crl.M.C.No.4270 of 2003 and the same was also dismissed by separate order later dated 27.07.07. It appears that the matter is slowly creeping up and is coming up for disposal and it is now the turn of the 3rd accused to come to this Court with the request to quash the proceedings. 2. The crux of the allegations is that the 1st accused effected a publication without bona fides and which was calculated and designed to tarnish and defame the complainant. The petitioner herein is described to be the authorised signatory of the 1st accused. 3. The counsel contends that virtually there are no worthwhile allegations which can mulct the petitioner with culpable liability. In these circumstances, powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to quash the proceedings, it is prayed. Crl.M.C. No.4831 of 2008 2 4. An indictee facing an undeserved criminal prosecution is certainly entitled to get the proceedings against him prematurely terminated. After the decision in Adalath Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal [2004 (3) KLT 382 S.C], which overruled the earlier decision in K.M.Mathew v. State of Kerala [[1992 (1) KLT 1 S.C], it is trite that a criminal court cannot prematurely terminate the proceedings in a summons case instituted on a private complaint. The petitioner will therefore be obliged to stand trial. 5. But the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C is an extraordinary jurisdiction to be invoked only in aid of justice. The crucial mantra to unlock Section 482 Cr.P.C is whether there is failure of justice and abuse of processes of the court. In the instant case, the petitioner is unable to offer any satisfactory explanation as to why in a prosecution initiated as early as in 2001 he has waited, till the other accused one after the other came to this Court and lost the battle, to come to this Court with this petition. I must realistically note that the prosecution has been initiated as early as in 2001 and the petitioner has not chosen to come before this Court till now. After a lapse of more than 7 years, he has chosen to come to this Court only now. Crl.M.C. No.4831 of 2008 3 6. For that reason, I am satisfied that, this is not a fit case where the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction can or ought to be invoked. I may hasten to observe that I have not intended to express any opinion on merits about the liability/obligation of the petitioner to stand trial. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly reports that the petitioner, who has already entered appearance, has been enlarged on bail and his personal presence has been dispensed with under Section 205 Cr.P.C. 7. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that there may be a direction for expeditious disposal. I am certainly of the opinion that this prosecution, initiated as early as in 2001, must be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam must make every endeavour to dispose of the proceedings expeditiously - at any rate, within a period of 4 months from the date on which a copy of this order is placed before the learned Magistrate. 8. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-