IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2008 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4496 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.693/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, ETTUMANUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED --------------- 1. LEELAMMA @ ANNAMMA ABRAHAM, 52 YEARS, W/O.EBRAHAM UTHUP, KUZHIVELIPPARAMBIL VEEDU, PERUMBAIKAD VILLAGE, PERUMBAIKKATTUSSERRY KARA, KOTTAYAM TALUK. 2. LIJI ABRAHAM, 25 YEARS, D/O.ABRAHAM UTHUP, KUZHIVELIPPARAMBIL VEEDU, PERUMBAIKAD VILLAGE, PERUMBAIKKATTUSSERRY KARA, KOTTAYAM TALUK. 3. LIJINA ABRAHAM, 22 YEARS, D/O.ABRAHAM UTHUP, KUZHIVELIPPARAMBIL VEEDU, PERUMBAIKAD VILLAGE, PERUMBAIKKATTUSSERRY KARA, KOTTAYAM TALUK. 4. ABRAHAM UTHUP, KUZHIVELIPPARAMBIL VEEDU, PERUMBAIKAD VILLAGE, PERUMBAIKKATTUSSERRY KARA, KOTTAYAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR SRI.SHAIJU ANTONY RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THAMPI JOSEPH, 42 YEARS, S/O.M.M.JOSEPH, MAMBARAPARAMBIL VEEDU, S.H.P.O, PERUMBAIKAD VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.4496 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of November, 2008 ORDER Petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 420 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations against them is that they had entered into a conspiracy to fraudulently deceive the defacto complainant/2nd respondent herein. The crux of the allegations is that accused 1 to 3 had entered into an agreement for sale of immovable property to the 2nd respondent. A written agreement was entered into. The advance amount was also received. But contrary to the stipulations of the agreement, the assignment was not given nor was the advance amount returned. The parties are before the civil court in two suits - one for temporary injunction against alienation and the other for specific performance. It is in this context that the final report has been filed raising allegations. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations are totally unsustainable and the charge against them is groundless. In these circumstances it is prayed that the Crl.M.C. No.4496 of 2008 2 petitioners may be saved of the undeserved trauma of such vexatious criminal prosecution. Premature termination of proceedings may be brought about by invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. I am certainly of the opinion that the contention of the petitioners that the allegations are groundless deserves to be considered seriously. The petitioners' claim for premature termination of proceedings does deserve an early and expeditious consideration. 4. But it is trite that an indictee facing undeserved criminal prosecution is certainly entitled to insist that the proceedings against him must be brought to premature termination and he should not be compelled to endure the undeserved trauma of such prosecution. Such premature termination at the threshold can ordinarily be claimed under the ordinary provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In a warrant offence, of which cognizance is taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police, such premature termination can be claimed by discharge at the stage of Section 239/240 Crl.M.C. No.4496 of 2008 3 Cr.P.C. Not that this Court does not have jurisdictional competence to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to bring to premature termination such a prosecution, but it must be noted that invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot be done as a matter of course. Satisfactory, compelling and exceptional reasons must be shown to exist to justify such invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. 5. But in the facts and circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that the parties can be relegated to claim such premature termination before the learned Magistrate. The counsel contends that the petitioners will be put to unnecessary obligation to appear before the learned Magistrate and get themselves enlarged on bail etc. I am satisfied that appropriate directions can be issued to allay such apprehension. 4. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed but with the observation that the petitioners' plea for premature termination by discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C shall be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously without insisting on the personal presence of the petitioners for such consideration. The Crl.M.C. No.4496 of 2008 4 petitioners can appear through their counsel and claim exemption from their personal appearance. Only if the learned Magistrate finds that the charges are liable to be framed against the petitioners under Section 240 Cr.P.C need the learned Magistrate insist on the personal appearance of the petitioner. Till then the petitioners shall be permitted to appear through counsel. 5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioners. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-