IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2008 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2083 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.609/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, HOSDRUG .................... PETITIONER: PETIRTIONER/ACCUSED ------------------------------- 1. ASHRAF.A.K., S/O.P.M.ABDULLA KUNHI HAJI P.M.MANZIL, KIZHUR ,PO.CHANDRAGIRI,KELANAD VILLAGE KASARAGOD. 2. MARIYUMMA, W/O.LATE PM.ABDULLA KUNHI HAJI, DO.DO. 3. BEEBI @ BEEFATHIMA, D/O.LATE P.M.ABDULLA KUNHUI HAJI, THALANGARA, PO.THALANGARA, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, SHO, BAKEL POLICE STATION,KASARAGOD, CRIME 213/2006, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. SAINABATH SAMEERA, D/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN KEEZHUR PADINCHAREKANDI, KALANAD VILLAGE PO.CHANDRAGIRI, KASARAGOD R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 2083 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2008 O R D E R 1. The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution under Section 498A I.P.C. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. The petitioners were granted bail at the crime state and they are already on bail. Ignoring the contentions raised by the petitioners before the Investigating Officer, without proper application of mind, final report has been filed, it is lamented. It is prayed that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. It is submitted that in an application for past-maintenance the Family Court has considered the relevant circumstances and the said finding will also suggests that there is no matrimonial cruelty, which emanated from the petitioner against the defacto complainant. The counsel contends that the allegations do not constitute sufficient materials to launch a prosecution under Section 498A I.P.C. 2 2. Final report has already been filed. The petitioners are already on bail. Such indictees can certainly claim premature termination of the proceedings under Section 239/240 Cr.P.C. In every case where the indictee feels that he is entitled for premature termination of the proceedings it is not necessary for this Court to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioners can urge their plea for discharge and consequent premature termination of the proceedings before the learned Magistrate under Section 239/240 Cr.P.C. If the petitioners do not get their reliefs there, certainly they can challenge the decision. I am not satisfied that powers under Sections 482 Cr.P.C. ought to be invoked. That is an extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction, which cannot and need not be invoked as a matter of course. 3. I find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that not only the husband but the whole family has been brought on the array of accused and serious prejudice and hardship would result if personal appearance of the petitioners were to be insisted before the petitioners get opportunity to claim discharge. 3 Appropriate observations can be made to allay that apprehension of the petitioners. 4. This Crl.M.C. is dismissed, but with the specific observation that the personal presence of the petitioners need not be insisted until a decision is taken on the question of charge/discharge under Section 239/240 Cr.P.C. The petitioners shall be permitted to appear through their counsel and make such plea for discharge. Until such decision is taken on the question of charge/discharge, they shall be permitted to appear through counsel. (R. BASANT) Judge tm