IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2008 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3995 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.730/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, CHENGANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 9: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. SRI.VISWANATHAN PILLA, MULLASSERI VEEDU, MUNDENCAVU, CHENGANNUR. 2. SRI. NANAPPAN, MANCHERIL VEEDU, MUNDENCAVU, CHENGANNUR. 3. SRI. SAJITH KUMAR, NAMPIYIL PUTHEN PURAYIL, MUNDENCAVU, CHENGANNUR. 4. SRI. SANAL KUMAR, NAMPIYIL PUTHEN PURAYIL, MUNDENCAVU, CHENGANNUR. 5. SRI.GOPAKUMAR, VADASSERI KIZHAKKETHIL, MUNDENCAVU, CHENGANNUR. 6. SRI. MURUKAN, POOVAKKATTU MOOLAYIL, MUNDENCAVU, CHENGANNUR. 7. SRI. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, PANIKKETHU VEEDU, MUTHAVAZHI, CHENGANNUR. 8. SRI.GOPLAKAKRISHNAN NAIR, ELAVUMPADIPURAYIL, KODAYATTUKARA, CHENGANNUR. 9. SRI. VISWANATHAN, KRISHNA VILASAM, MUNDENCAVU, CHENGANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.S.HARIKRISHNAN Kss ..2/- ...2..... CRL.M.C.NO.3995/2008 RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR. 3. SRI. VINOD KUMAR, S/O. RAJASEKHARAN NAIR, KADATHOTTIL HOUSE, MUNDANKAVU MURI, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R. BASANT, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 3995 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2008 O R D E R The petitioners, 9 in number, face indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 380 IPC. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the Police after due investigation. The crime in turn was registered on the basis of a private complaint filed before the Magistrate which was referred to the Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C . The crux of the allegations is that the petitioners who had no right to interfere with the management of a temple in violation of the specific orders passed by the Civil Court interfered in the management of the temple and took away by force amounts which were available in the 'Kanikka Vanchi' maintained by the temple. Cognizance has already been taken. Process has been issued to the petitioners. They have entered appearance before the learned Magistrate. Charges have not been framed so far. At this juncture, petitioners have come before this Court with a prayer that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to quash the prosecution against them. The fact that there was in fact an order Crl.M.C. No. 3995 OF 2008 -:2:- of the Civil Court restraining them from interfering with the management of the temple by the defacto complainant is not seriously disputed. The contention raised is that the defacto complainant and the former committee of the temple did not manage the affairs of the temple properly. They abandoned the temple obliging the newly elected Committee to take appropriate action. In the light of this contention, it is prayed that the petitioners may be saved of the trauma of undeserved prosecution. Premature termination of the proceedings may be brought about by invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C., it is prayed. 2. An indictee facing an undeserved criminal prosecution does certainly have the right to claim premature termination of such criminal prosecution. Ordinarily and normally, such premature termination must be claimed under the ordinary provisions of the Code. The Code does provide for such premature termination of proceedings. In a prosecution for warrant offence of which cognizance is taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police, such premature termination Crl.M.C. No. 3995 OF 2008 -:3:- must be claimed at the threshold of the proceedings by claiming discharge under Sec.239 Cr.P.C. That is the ordinary and normal method to claim premature termination of a criminal prosecution. 3. But this does not mean that the High Court does not have jurisdictional competence to prematurely terminate an undeserved prosecution against an indictee. The question is not one of jurisdictional competence at all which the High Court certainly has. Sobriety and sagacity lies in identifying a proper case in which such extraordinary inherent jurisdiction can and ought to be invoked. Merely because such powers are available with the court, such jurisdiction shall not be invoked. Satisfactory, compelling and exceptional reasons must be shown to exist to persuade the court to invoke such extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. Even the mere possibility that the accused may be successful in his claim for discharge under Sec.239 Cr.P.C. shall not by itself persuade a court to invoke such extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. 4. I shall be circumspect. I shall not embark on a detailed discussion about the acceptability of the allegations or the Crl.M.C. No. 3995 OF 2008 -:4:- credibility of the materials collected. Suffice it to say that on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs, I am not persuaded to agree that this is a fit case where such extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. can or ought to be invoked in favour of the petitioners now. The petitioners must be relegated to invoke the ordinary provisions of the Code to claim such premature termination of proceedings. 5. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed. I may hasten to observe that I have only chosen to take the view that the powers under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. do not deserve to be invoked. I have not intended to express any opinion on merits of the claim of the petitioner for discharge at the stage of Sec.239/240 Cr.P.C. and in case they do not succeed that stage, their claim for acquittal at later stages. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are already on bail. They shall suffer great prejudice if their personal presence were insisted on all dates of posting before the court takes a decision on the question of discharge. I find no reason why such presence should be insisted. The Crl.M.C. No. 3995 OF 2008 -:5:- petitioners can apply for exemption and until a decision is tak n on the question of framing charge and the court finds it necess ry to frame charges under Sec.240 Cr.P.C., the personal presen e of the petitioners need not be insisted if they are represented by their counsel. 7. With the above observations, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed. R. BASANT, JUDGE ttb Crl.M.C. No. 3995 OF 2008 -:6:- Crl.M.C. No. 3995 OF 2008 -:7:-