IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4332 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.663/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1 AND 2 --------------- 1. JINESH M, AGED 37, BRANCH MANAGER, MAHINDRA FINANCE, 3RD FLOOR, MUTHOOT (CHAMBERS NEAR SASTHA TEMPLE THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.. 2. T.P. UDAYAKUMAR,SALES EXECUTIVE, DO.. BY ADV. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT --------------- 1. SHIBU, AGED 34, S/O. RAJAN, RAJ NIVAS, MARUTHATHOOR DESOM, NEYYATTINKARA VILLAGE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.4332 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of November, 2008 ORDER Petitioners are accused 1 and 2, who face indictment in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 379 r/w 34 I.P.C. The crux of the allegation against the accused persons - 3 in number in that case, is that they, with fraudulent intention by the use of force, took away the vehicle belonging to the defacto complainant. 2. On the complaint filed, enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C appears to have been conducted by the learned Magistrate who took cognizance of the offence alleged. The petitioners pray that the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to quash the proceedings against them. 3. The petitioners have not entered appearance before the lower court. The counsel prays that the allegations are groundless and the petitioners are entitled to have proceedings against them quashed. According to the petitioners it is only a bona fide exercise of the rights which the petitioners have under Crl.M.C. No.4332 of 2008 2 an agreement of hire purchase. According to them the vehicle had been surrendered long prior to 18.01.08, the date of the alleged seizure. It was surrendered on 23.10.07 voluntarily by the complainant, it is alleged. In these circumstances, it is prayed that premature termination of proceedings may be effected by invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Resolution of disputes and complicated questions of fact cannot be attempted in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. An indictee facing an unjustified criminal prosecution can certainly claim premature termination of proceedings. Such premature termination in a warrant offence in which cognizance has been taken on the basis of a private complaint can be claimed under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. In the alternative, premature termination by discharge can be claimed under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C. Ordinarily and normally, premature termination must be claimed in such proceedings under Section 245(2) or 245(1) Cr.P.C. In an exceptional case, this Court does certainly have the reservoir of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash a criminal complaint. But such jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a matter Crl.M.C. No.4332 of 2008 3 of course. Exceptional reasons must be shown to exist. I do not find any such reasons in this case. 5. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed without any fetter on the rights of the petitioners to claim premature termination by discharge under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C or 245(1) Cr.P.C. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if unnecessary personal appearance of the petitioners were insisted to facilitate such claim for premature termination, that would cause great hardship and loss to them. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that the petitioners can be permitted to appear through counsel and stake their claim for discharge. Unless it is absolutely essential for the progress of the case, the learned Magistrate need not insist on the personal appearance of the petitioners till the stage of charge. They can be permitted to appear through counsel and stake their claim for discharge under Section 245(1) or 245(2) Cr.P.C. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-