IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 8TH ASWINA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3678 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.75/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHITTUR .................... PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED: --------------- PADMANABANUNNI S/O.KESAVANKUTTY, AGED 75 YEARS, KARUMATHIL HOUSE, PANANGATTIRI, KOLLENGODE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENT/STATE: --------------- STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3678 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of September 2008 O R D E R The petitioner is the first accused and he faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable inter alia under Sections 471 and 408 read with 34 I.P.C. Altogether three accused persons were arrayed. The petitioner is the Secretary of a Co- operative Society and the second accused is the President of the Society. The 3rd accused, who is reported to have expired, was a member of the Director Board of the Society. The crux of the allegations as can be identified from the F.I.R is that bogus loan applications in the name of fictitious non-existent persons were filed and such applications were made use of to siphon out the funds of the society. This allegedly was committed with the collusion and active co-operation of the accused persons who did not discharge their duties in respect to such loan application. Investigation is now complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken. The petitioner has already appeared before the court below and has been enlarged on bail, it is submitted. Crl.M.C.No.3678/08 2 2. The final report has not been produced before this court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the final report is liable to be quashed invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. What is the reason? The learned counsel for the petitioner advances various contentions. It is submitted that the F.I.R was registered on 05/04/1997. The alleged incident took place in 1995. The petitioner is a person of advanced age. The petitioner is not having the responsibility to identify the loan applicants. He proceeds on the identification made by the President of the Society and the resolutions of the Board of Directors. In these circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve to endure the trauma of a criminal prosecution, it is submitted. 3. I have considered the submissions. I shall carefully avoid any detailed discussion on merits about the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that, having considered all the relevant inputs, I am not persuaded to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Crl.M.C.No.3678/08 3 4. Premature termination of an undeserved criminal prosecution can certainly be claimed by an indictee. Such claim must normally be made under the ordinary provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In a prosecution in which cognizance has been taken of a warrant offence on the basis of a final report submitted by the police, such premature termination can be claimed at the stage of Section 239 Cr.P.C by discharge. Ordinarily and normally indictees must be relegated to claim premature termination by resorting to such ordinary provisions of the court. In an exceptional case where the interests of justice compellingly so demand, this court does, of course, have the reservoir of sweeping powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to bring to premature termination such a prosecution. But sufficient, satisfactory and compelling reasons must be shown to exist for this court to deviate from the normal procedure and to entertain such a request for premature termination by invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. I do not find any such reasons in this case. 5. It will be for the petitioner to claim premature termination of the proceedings by discharge under Section 239 Crl.M.C.No.3678/08 4 Cr.P.C, if he feels that he has a justifiable ground to so claim such termination. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner wants to raise the question of the bar of limitation also. That question can also be raised at the stage of Section 239 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is aged 70 years and if his personal presence were to be insisted on all dates of posting, that will work out great prejudice and hardship to the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is already on bail. 6. The petitioner can apply for exemption and advance the plea for discharge through his counsel. Only if the learned Magistrate finds that charges are liable to be framed u/s 240 Cr.P.C, need the learned Magistrate insist on the personal appearance of the petitioner, in the absence of other compelling reasons. 7. With the above observations, this Crl.M.C is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.3678/08 5 Crl.M.C.No.3678/08 6 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008