IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2008 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4624 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.889/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): 2ND ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------ PUNCHIRI, W/O.ELANJIKKAL XAVIER, EDAVILANGU VILLAGE-DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENT(S): STATE: --------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE S.I. OF POLICE, THRISSUR WEST POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4624 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December 2008 O R D E R The order in this case was dictated on 28/11/2008. But before the file was sent out, the learned counsel for the petitioner wanted the matter to be posted to this date to enable him to ascertain whether the submission made by him that charges have not been framed is correct or not. Hence the case was posted to this date to be spoken to. 2. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition may be dismissed as withdrawn inasmuch as charges have already been framed and the petitioner shall take necessary steps to challenge the order framing charge by initiating appropriate proceedings. 3. The said request is accepted. The order dated 28/11/2008 dictated in court is recalled and this Crl.M.C is now dismissed as withdrawn as requested by the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Crl.M.C.No.4624/08 2 The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable inter alia under Sections 466 and 474 read with 34 I.P.C. She is the second accused. Her husband is the first accused. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is that she, in collusion with her husband, the first accused, manufactured false documents which were purported to be Crl.M.C.No.4624/08 3 documents issued by the Family Court. 2. Final report has been filed. Cognizance has been taken. The petitioner has already entered appearance and was enlarged on bail, it is submitted. The petitioner, at this juncture, has come to this court with the prayer that the final report filed against her may be quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. Premature termination of an undeserved prosecution can certainly be claimed by an indictee. Such premature termination must ordinarily be claimed under the ordinary provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the prosecution of a warrant offence, cognizance of which was taken on the basis of a police report, such premature termination must be claimed by discharge at the stage of 239 Cr.P.C. Of course, this court, in an exceptional case does have the reservoir of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to prematurely terminate the proceedings; but such invocation cannot be a matter of course. Satisfactory, compelling and exceptional reasons must be shown to exist to justify the invocation of such extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. Crl.M.C.No.4624/08 4 4. I do not find any such exceptional reasons in this case. I am satisfied that this is an eminently fit case where the petitioner, who has already entered appearance, must be relegated to claim discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C before the learned Magistrate. Such plea must be considered by the learned Magistrate as expeditiously as possible and appropriate decision taken. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the personal presence of the petitioner were insisted before the court below, that would work out great prejudice and hardship to the petitioner. 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 petitioner to be represented by her counsel until a decision is taken on the question of discharge. Only if the learned Magistrate takes the decision that charges are liable to be framed, need the personal presence of the petitioner be insisted. Until then, she shall be permitted to be represented by her counsel. 6. With the above observations, this Crl.M.C is dismissed. Crl.M.C.No.4624/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008