IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4791 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.255/2007 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED --------------- DEEPA VARGHESE, W/O.K.P.VARGHESE, AGED 36 YEARS, WELGATE GARDENS, KURAVANKONAM, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUSEUM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4791 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of December 2008 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment as the 3rd accused in C.C.No.255/07. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police. In such final report, it is alleged that the petitioner along with the co-accused including her husband has committed offences punishable under the Copy Rights Act. After cognizance was taken, further investigation was conducted under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C and a further final report has been submitted as Annexure II. In that further final report, certain allegations were dropped but the prosecution asserted that the prosecution against the petitioner is liable to be continued. The petitioner was not arrested at the crime stage. In the final report it has very specifically been stated that there is no need to arrest the petitioner. 2. Now, the learned Magistrate has issued coercive processes against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, this is absolutely unjustified. Against the petitioner, there is no worthwhile allegation whatsoever. The petitioner is entitled to have the proceedings against her terminated by invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It Crl.M.C.No.4791/08 2 is prayed that the petitioner may be saved of the undeserved trauma of further proceedings against her. 3. I have considered all the relevant inputs. An indictee facing an unjustified criminal prosecution can certainly claim premature termination of proceedings. But such premature termination of proceedings must ordinarily be claimed in accordance with the ordinary provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In a warrant offence in which cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police, such premature termination can be claimed by discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. 4. If exceptional circumstances are there, this court can, in the interests of justice, invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I am not persuaded to agree that in the facts and circumstances of this case such invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction is necessary. I am satisfied that the petitioner must be relegated to claim premature termination under the ordinary provisions of the Code. However, I find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the personal appearance of the petitioner need not be insisted in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case to enable her to claim discharge. In these circumstances, while dismissing this Crl.M.C, I Crl.M.C.No.4791/08 3 am satisfied that appropriate directions can be issued to safeguard the interests of justice. 5. In the result, a) This Crl.M.C is dismissed. b) It is specifically observed that the petitioner's plea for premature termination of proceedings by discharge must be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits and as expeditiously as possible. c) It is further directed that until a decision is taken on the question of framing charge, the personal presence of the petitioner shall not be insisted by the learned Magistrate and she shall be permitted to appear through pleader. If she is so represented by a pleader, her personal presence shall not be insisted by the learned Magistrate until a decision is taken that charges are liable to be framed. If charges are not liable to be framed, personal presence of the petitioner need not be insisted at all. d) Coercive processes issued against the petitioner shall not be executed until further orders of the learned Magistrate. Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.4791/08 4 Crl.M.C.No.4791/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008