IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2008 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4002 of 2008() ------------------------------------ CC.NO.346/2008 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, MANANDAVADY .......................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- SUBHASHAN V.R., S/O.RAGHAVAN, AGED 55 YEARS, VANKARATH HOUSE, PAZHOOR P.O., PIRAVOM. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH SRI.SABU JOHN S. RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLAMUNDA POLICE STATION, WAYNAD. 3. MUHAMADKUTTY MASTER, S/O. SOOPHY HAJI, AGED 60 YEARS, MUHARAM, RESIDING AT KUNDALA, ANJUKUNJU AMSOM DESOM, ANJUKUNJU P.O., MANANDAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD VILLAGE. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4002 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of October 2008 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 420 I.P.C. 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 private complaint filed before the learned Magistrate and referred by the learned Magistrate to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 2. The crux of the allegations is that the de facto complainant had applied for an employment and was constrained to part with an amount of Rs.2,500/- on the basis of fraudulent inducement by the petitioner. Thereafter the de facto complainant was obliged to work; but the wages/salary due to him was fraudulently withheld. On these allegations, it is contended that the petitioner has committed the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. Cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. Summons has been issued. The petitioner has not entered appearance so far. The petitioner has come to this court with the submission that he does not deserve Crl.M.C.No.4002/08 2 to stand the unjustified indictment and prays that the same may be quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. An indictee facing unjustified prosecution before a criminal court is certainly entitled to claim premature termination of the prosecution against him. Normally and ordinarily such premature termination must be claimed by the indictee in accordance with the ordinary provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Code does provide for termination of proceedings at the threshold without obliging the indictee to stand the tedium and trauma of a full fledged trial. Not that this court does not have jurisdictional competence under Section 482 Cr.P.C in an appropriate case to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction and bring to premature termination the criminal proceedings. But such powers are not to be invoked as a matter of course. Unless sufficient, satisfactory, compelling and exceptional reasons are there, ordinarily such an indictee must be relegated to claim premature termination before the learned Magistrate concerned. In a warrant case where cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police, such premature termination can be sought and achieved at the stage of Section 239/240 Cr.P.C. I find absolutely nothing in this case by which the ordinary Crl.M.C.No.4002/08 3 procedure before the learned Magistrate contemplated by the court must be short circuited and this court should invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the personal presence of the petitioner were insisted to facilitate the claim for discharge, that would work out great prejudice and hardship to the petitioner. I am satisfied that there is merit in that submission. Appropriate directions can be issued under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. In the result, this Crl.M.C is dismissed but with the specific observation that the petitioner shall be at liberty to stake his claim for discharge under Section 239/240 Cr.P.C. 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 his 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, he shall be permitted to be represented by his counsel. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.4002/08 4 Crl.M.C.No.4002/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008