IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2008 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4052 of 2008 ---------------------------------- ( C.C. NO. 399/2005 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA) ............... PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED 2 TO 7: ----------------------------------------------- 1. SMT. B.K. KUNHAMI, W/O. LATE IBRAHIM, AGED 60 YEARS, CHERIYATHATTARI HOUSE, VALANKICHAL.P.O., PATHIRIYADU, (VIA) PINARAYI, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. SMT. B.K. NAZEEMA, W/O. MUSTHAFA, AGED 35 YEARS, THAZHATHU HOUSE, GANDHI ROAD, MATTANNUR.P.O., KANNUR DIST. 3. SMT. B.K. JAMEELA, W/O. RAFEEQUE, AGED 37 YRS., JASEERA MANZIL, SANKARABELLOOR.P.O., (VIA) KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. SMT. B.K. THAHIRA, W/O. MUNEER, AGED 33 YRS., P.V. HOUSE, KOLARI, P.O. NADUVANAD (VIA) MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. SMT. B.K. RAHMATH, W/O. RAHEEM, AGED 31 YEARS., NIZAR MANZIL, CENTRAL NARAVOOR, (P.O) KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 6. SMT. B.K. RUKHIYA, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. SATHAR, RASEENA MANZIL, MUNDAMOTTA P.O., PATHIRIYAD, (VIA) PINARAYI, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. K.P. SARVOTHAMAN. RESPONDENT: --------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/10/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 4052 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of October, 2008 O R D E R The petitioners are accused 2 to 7 and they face allegations in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 498A I.P.C. They are the mother-in-law and sisters-in-law of the defacto complainant. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of the final report submitted by the police after due investigation in a crime. That crime in turn was registered on the basis of the private complaint filed before the Magistrate by the defacto complainant and referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Investigation is complete. Final report has been filed. The petitioners have appeared before the learned Magistrate and they have been enlarged on bail. It is submitted at the Bar that charges have been framed against the petitioners. At this stage they have come before this Court with a plea that the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash the proceedings against them. Crl.M.C.No. 4052 of 2008 2 2. What is the reason? The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations in the private complaint are so deficient that even if the allegations were accepted in toto, the complaint does not justify the initiation of the prosecution under Section 498A and 420 I.P.C. Therefore the petitioners are entitled for premature termination of the criminal proceedings against them, it is contended. 3. An indictee facing unjustified and undeserved criminal prosecution can certainly claim premature termination of proceedings. In a warrant offence, of which cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police, such premature termination must ordinarily be claimed according to the ordinary provisions of the Code, i.e. by claiming discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. In the instant case, though it is submitted that the petitioners wanted to claim discharge, that plea has not been accepted. The rejection of the plea for discharge is a revisable order under Section 397 Cr.P.C. and the bar under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. will not apply also, the order being a non-interlocutory one, as the proceedings will come to termination if the plea of discharge of the petitioners were accepted. Crl.M.C.No. 4052 of 2008 3 4. The petitioners have a right to challenge the impugned order in revision. They have not invoked those provisions. They have come before this Court to claim invocation of the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction. Notwithstanding the availability of alternative remedy this Court does have the reservoir of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to invoke the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction and bring to termination a criminal prosecution. But such powers are not to be invoked as a matter of course. Satisfactory, compelling and exceptional reasons must be shown to exist to justify the resort to such extra ordinary provisions of the Code. The party who has other equally efficacious remedy to redress his grievance shall not ordinarily and in the absence of compelling reasons be permitted to request the court to invoke such jurisdiction. For that reason this petition must fail. 5. This Crl.M,C. is accordingly dismissed. I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioners to challenge the order framing charge on the Crl.M.C.No. 4052 of 2008 4 ground that the allegations against them are groundless and charges are not liable to be framed under Section 240 Cr.P.C. (R. BASANT) Judge tm