IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2008 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2307 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.171/2006 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER: PETITIONER ---------------------- S.R. KRISHNAN @ SIVARAMA KRISHNAN, S/O.K.K. BHASKARA VAIDYAR, 7/318, THAREKKAD, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. PARASU, S/O. APPUKKUTTA MOOTHAN, 33/174, SREERAGAM STREET, KARNAKI NAGAR, VADAKKANTHARA, PALAKKAD. 2. U. AYYAPPAN, S/O. UNNI MOOTHAN, SREERAM STREET, KARNAKI NAGAR, VADAKKANTHARA, PALAKKAD. 3. KRISHNAMANI, S/O. APPUKUTTA MOOTHAN, 33/175, SREERAM STREET, KARNAKI NAGAR, VADAKKANTHARA, PALAKKAD. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.2307 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of June, 2008 ORDER Petitioner is the 4th accused in a prosecution initiated against 4 accused persons on the basis of a private complaint filed by the 1st respondent herein. Respondents 2 and 3 are two of the three co-accused in the said case. Cognizance was taken on a private complaint. 2. The crux of the allegations is that the petitioner, who had come into possession of blank signed promissory notes and cheques of the complainant, had materially altered/forged such documents to justify and support the untenable claims raised by himself and some others in a civil suit and criminal prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Prosecutions have been initiated against the complainant by some others (not the petitioner) on the basis of some cheques. The petitioner had instituted a suit against the complainant and the 2nd accused. 3. In short, the gravamen or substance of the contention is that those allegations are all false and that the petitioner is being exposed to the trauma and agony of an unnecessary prosecution on the basis of such false allegations. Crl.M.C. No.2307 of 2008 2 4. Whether the allegations raised in a complaint, on the basis of which cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate, are true or untrue cannot obviously be decided by this Court exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The law permits the indictee to claim premature termination of proceedings by invoking the ordinary and normal procedures contemplated under the Criminal Procedure Code. In a private complaint instituted in a warrant case like the instant one, the petitioner can claim premature termination by discharge under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C at the threshold or under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C after the preliminary enquiry is over. At any rate, invocation of the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash such proceedings, which according to one of the contestants is false, cannot be done lightly. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am not persuaded to agree that there are any compelling reasons which can persuade this Court to invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to bring about premature termination of the proceedings. The petitioner must appear before the learned Magistrate and claim discharge under Section 245(2) or 245(1) Cr.P.C or acquittal later on. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the petitioner were compelled to appear and seek bail before the Crl.M.C. No.2307 of 2008 3 plea of discharge under Section 245(2) or 245(1) Cr.P.C is considered, that would work out great prejudice, hardship and inconvenience to the petitioner. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that directions can be issued in favour of the petitioner to allay that apprehension of the petitioner also. 6. In the result, this Crl.M.C is dismissed, but with the specific observation that the petitioner shall be entitled to appear before the learned Magistrate through his counsel and claim discharge at the stage of Section 245(2) or 245(1) Cr.P.C. Till a decision is taken on the question of discharge, the learned Magistrate shall not and need not insist on the personal appearance of the petitioner. He shall be permitted to appear through counsel and make his plea for discharge unless for reasons to be recorded he is directed to appear in the event of a dispute regarding the identity in the course of such preliminary enquiry. Until then the petitioner shall be directed to appear through counsel. 7. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-