IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2008 / 23RD SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3095 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.544/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ETTUMANUR .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- 1. MR.E.M. BAIJU, S/O. MR.MURALEEDHARAN, AGED 38 GOKULAM HOUE, PADINJARUM BHAGAM KARA ATHIRAMPUZHA VILLAGE, ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O. KOTTAYAM. 2. MR. SASI, S/O. SASIDHARAN, THUMBUMGAL HOUSE KOTHANALLOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK KOTTAYAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAGADEESCHANDRAN NAIR SMT.DIVYA C BALAN RESPONDENT: ----------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ETTUMANUR, KOTTAYAM, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 3095 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of August, 2008 O R D E R The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 r/w. 34 I.P.C. Cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation. After cognizance, the petitioners had entered appearance before the learned Magistrate and have been permitted to continue on bail. It is at this stage that they have come before this Court with a prayer that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash the proceedings against them. 2. What is the reason? The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations are not true and are not supported by materials made available before court. He further submits that the allegations even if accepted would not amount to offences under Sections 419 and 420 I.P.C. He hence prays that the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked. Crl.M.C.No. 3095 of 2008 2 3. An indictee facing criminal prosecution is certainly entitled to claim premature termination of the proceedings initiated against him. Normally and ordinarily he must invoke the ordinary provisions of the Code to claim such premature termination of proceedings. In a case instituted upon police report relating to a warrant offence, such premature termination can be claimed by discharge at the stage of Section 239/240 Cr.P.C. Ordinarily I would hence relegate the parties to claim premature termination from the Magistrate at that stage. 4. Of course, this court has jurisdictional competence under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in an appropriate case to invoke the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction to prematurely terminate the criminal proceedings against indictees. The true function of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to identify such cases where such extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction can and ought to be invoked. Such powers cannot be invoked as a matter of course. Sufficient, satisfactory and exceptional reasons must be shown to exist to justify such invocation. There is no specific allegation of malafides against the Investigating authority. I Crl.M.C.No. 3095 of 2008 3 am, in these circumstances, satisfied that this is an eminently fit case where the petitioners must be relegated to seek the relief of premature termination by discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that expeditious relief is not being granted by the court below by consideration of the plea of discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. This obliges the petitioners, who according to the counsel, are entitled for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C., to endure the trauma of prolonged litigation before the court below. I am satisfied that appropriate directions can be issued to safeguard the interests of justice. 9. This Crl.M.C. is hence dismissed with the observation that the petitioners can appear before the learned Magistrate and claim discharge at the stage of Section 239/240 Cr.P.C. and the learned Magistrate must consider such plea as expeditiously as possible. It is further directed that the personal presence of petitioners shall not be insisted to consider such plea for discharge. If they appear through counsel and advance the plea for discharge, their personal presence shall not be insisted until and (if the) learned Magistrate finds that Crl.M.C.No. 3095 of 2008 4 charges are liable to be framed against them. Only if the learned Magistrate finds that such charges are liable to be framed, need petitioners appear in person before the learned Magistrate. 10. Hand over copy of the order. (R. BASANT) Judge tm