IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2009 / 15TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 41 of 2009() ----------------------- CC.144/2008 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): 3RD ACCUSED -------------------------- ALPHONSA, AGED 57 YEARS, W/O.K.L. JOSEPH, KOCHIKARAN VEEDU, CHETTIKADU, OMANAPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JAMES RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------ 1. JOSELIN @ DINU, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O.M.J. JOHNSON, MANICKAL, DEEPU NIVAS, ASHOKA, ARAKKULAM.P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 41 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of January, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner is the third accused and she, along with the co-accused, faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 498A I.P.C. Altogether there are three accused persons. The first accused is the son of the petitioner and the second accused is her husband. The crux of the allegations against the petitioners is that they are guilty of matrimonial cruelty of culpable variety against the defacto complainant, a girl, who was married by the first accused. The petitioner was employed abroad. It is alleged that on her return to India on 1.7.2008 she, who did not approve of the marriage, demanded dowry of Rs. 5 lakhs and the share in the property of the defacto complainant. Cognizance was taken on the basis of the final report submitted by the police after due investigation. The crime in turn was registered on the basis of a private complaint filed before the Magistrate and referred to the police Crl.M.C.No. 41 of 2009 2 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Cognizance has been taken. The petitioner has not entered appearance so far. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. According to the petitioner she is absolutely innocent. She is not in any way responsible for any crime. Totally false and vexatious allegations are raised against the petitioner. She was employed abroad and had come to India. The petitioner's son, during the absence of the petitioner in India, had contracted a marriage with the defacto complainant. Only to vex and harass her this false complaint has been filed and the proceedings initiated by the defacto complainant may be quashed, it is prayed. 3. The short ground on which the prayer for quashing is founded is that the allegations raised against her are false. At the moment and with the available inputs, it is impossible for this court to hazard a finding that the allegations are so totally false and baseless that the proceedings deserve to be quashed invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the allegations are groundless. If that be so, the petitioner Crl.M.C.No. 41 of 2009 3 can claim premature termination of proceedings by discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. 4. An indictee facing unjustified and undeserved criminal prosecution can certainly claim premature termination of such proceedings. Ordinarily and normally such premature termination must be claimed according to the ordinary provisions of the Code. Of course in an exceptional case, where the interests of justice compellingly demand such a course, this Court has the reservoir of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to invoke the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction and bring to premature end such prosecution. I do not find any such reasons in this case. I am in these circumstances satisfied that this is a fit case where the petitioner must be relegated to claim premature termination of prosecution by discharge at the stage of Section 239 Cr.P.C. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, a woman, had met with an accident and is laid up. Great hardship and inconvenience would result if the personal presence of the petitioner were insisted on all dates of posting to facilitate Crl.M.C.No. 41 of 2009 4 consideration of the plea of discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. I am satisfied that appropriate directions can be issued. 6. This Crl.M.C. is dismissed, but with the specific observation that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to claim premature termination by discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. It is further directed that the personal presence of the petitioner need not be insisted by the court below to consider the plea of discharge. Only if a decision is taken that charges are liable to be framed against the petitioner, need the learned Magistrate insist on the personal presence of the petitioner. On all other dates the petitioner can be permitted to appear through counsel, if she is represented appropriately by a counsel. (R. BASANT) Judge tm