IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 527 of 2009() ------------------------ CC.362/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.M.MANOJ, S/O.MADHAVAN, AGED PUTHUPILLEDATH VEEDU,KODUMBIDI PO, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR SRI.C.X.ANTONY BENEDICT RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DEEPADARSHINI.G. ,W/O. LIJO ZACHARIA, TITUS APPARTMENTS, KEECHERI, PAPPINISSERI PO VALAPATTANAM,KANNUR. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER VALAPATTANAM POLICE STATION, VALAPATTANAM,KANNUR. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI.P.A. SALIM. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 527 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2009 ORDER The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Sec.420 IPC. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation in a crime. That crime, in turn, was registered on the basis of a complaint filed before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kannur, and forwarded to the local Police Station. The petitioner has not been arrested at the crime stage or thereafter. On the final report, cognizance has been taken. Calendar Case has been registered. Reckoning the petitioner as an absconding accused, coercive processes have been issued against the petitioner by the learned Magistrate . Such processes are chasing the petitioner now. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest in execution of such processes. Crl.M.C. No. 527 of 2009 -: 2 :- 2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent. Criminal adjudicatory process has been initiated against the petitioner unjustifiably. The allegations against the petitioner are groundless. In these circumstances, this prosecution may be quashed. The petitioner may not be compelled to endure the trauma of execution of the coercive processes against him and of standing trial before the learned Magistrate, submits counsel. 3. I am satisfied that the contention of the petitioner that the allegations against him are groundless deserves to be considered. I am further satisfied that an indictee facing an unjustified and undeserved criminal prosecution against him is entitled to premature termination of proceedings without obliging him to endure the trauma of such prosecution. Such premature termination of proceedings can be claimed at the threshold in a criminal prosecution in accordance with the ordinary and normal provisions of Code. Where the offence alleged is a warrant offence and cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation, such premature termination can be claimed under Sec.239 Cr.P.C. Of course, in an appropriate case whether the interests of justice compellingly demand such course, this Court has the reservoir of powers under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. to bring to Crl.M.C. No. 527 of 2009 -: 3 :- premature termination such prosecution. But invocation of the powers under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. cannot be a matter of course. Satisfactory, sufficient, compelling and exceptional reasons must be shown to exist to justify the invocation of such extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. 4. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that the petitioner can be relegated to claim premature termination by discharge under Sec.239 Cr.P.C. and it is not necessary for this Court to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. 5. I find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that great prejudice, hardship and inconvenience would result if the personal presence of the petitioner were to be insisted on all dates of posting to enable him to stake his claim for premature termination of prosecution by discharge. I am satisfied, in these circumstances, that appropriate directions can be issued. 6. In the result: (a) This Crl.M.C. is dismissed. (b) But it is observed that the coercive processes issued against the petitioner shall not be executed till 24/2/2009. On or before that date the petitioner shall appear before the learned Crl.M.C. No. 527 of 2009 -: 4 :- Magistrate through counsel and claim exemption from personal appearance. (c) The learned Magistrate shall consider the petitioner's plea for discharge under Sec.239 Cr.P.C. expeditiously. If the petitioner is represented by a counsel, the learned Magistrate shall not insist on the personal presence of the petitioner until and unless the learned Magistrate comes to a conclusion that charges are liable to be framed under Sec.240 Cr.P.C. Until then, the petitioner shall be permitted to be represented by counsel. 7. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ Crl.M.C. No. 527 of 2009 -: 5 :-