IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4250 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.1122/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KATTAKADA CRIME NO.262/2006 OF VILAPPILSALA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- SATHYAKUMAR, S/O. CHAKRAPANI, AMBIKA BHAVAN, ELAPPURA MARKET ROAD, PEERUMEDU TALUK, IDUKKI, FROM ABIKA BHAVAN, KOZODU,KOTTUKAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. LEELA ANTONY, W/O. ANTONY, BINU NIVAS, NEDUMKUZHI, CHEVALLOOR MURI, VILAPPIL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.4250 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of November, 2008 ORDER Petitioner is the sole accused in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 420 I.P.C. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation. Summons has been issued to the petitioner. The petitioner has not entered appearance so far. The crime was registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the defacto complainant and referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations do not reveal the commission of any criminal offence at all. At worst accepting all the allegations all that is revealed is that there is failure to discharge a civil liability. The allegations against the petitioner are groundless. In these circumstances, invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C the vexatious prosecution against the petitioner may be brought to premature termination, it is prayed. 3. An indictee facing undeserved criminal prosecution is certainly entitled to insist that the proceedings against him must Crl.M.C. No.4250 of 2008 2 be brought to premature termination and he should not be compelled to endure the undeserved trauma of such prosecution. Such premature termination at the threshold can ordinarily be claimed under the ordinary provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In a warrant offence, of which cognizance is taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police, such premature termination can be claimed by discharge at the stage of Section 239/240 Cr.P.C. Not that this Court does not have jurisdictional competence to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to bring to premature termination such a prosecution, but it must be noted that invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot be done as a matter of course. Satisfactory, compelling and exceptional reasons must be shown to exist to justify such invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am unable to perceive any such exceptional reasons. Cognizance has already been taken and the petitioner has received summons to appear before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner can appear before the learned Magistrate and seek premature termination by discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Crl.M.C. No.4250 of 2008 3 4. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. I may hasten to observe that I have not considered the disputes raised on merits. I have only taken the view that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C does not deserve to be invoked. The petitioner's option to claim premature termination by discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C shall remain unfettered by the dismissal of this petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if unnecessary insistence were made on the personal presence of the petitioner till such plea of discharge is raised, considered and decision taken, that would cause very great hardship and difficulties to the petitioner. The petitioner can enter appearance and thereafter can apply for exemption. His personal presence need thereafter be insisted, unless specific reasons are there, only for the purpose of framing charge under Section 240 Cr.P.C if court finds that such charges are liable to be framed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-