IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4220 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.2/2008 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. M.PRABHAKARAN LALU NIVAS, ITHILTHARA PARAMBU PAYYANAKKAL,KALLAYI.PO, KOZHIKODE. 2. PREMALATHA, W/O.M.PRABHAKARAN RESIDING DO...DO..... BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PRABISHA.N., D/O.N.BABU NAMBUNI HOUSE, YMRC ROAD,VATTAKKINAR,MEENCHANDA. 2. STATE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4220 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of November 2008 O R D E R Against the petitioners and some others their, daughter-in- law filed a private complaint. The crux of the allegations is that she was fraudulently induced to enter matrimony with the son of the petitioners who was suffering from blood cancer. Deliberately suppressing that information from the complainant and fraudulently inducing her to believe them by making false representations that the son of the petitioners is healthy, she was deceived. Son of the petitioners has expired. The learned Magistrate, after conducting 202 enquiry has taken cognizance of the offences alleged inter alia under Section 420 Cr.P.C against the petitioners herein alone. They have already appeared before the learned Magistrate and are enlarged on bail. 2. The petitioners have, at this stage, come to this court with the grievance that the cognizance taken is not justified. The allegations are groundless. The petitioners do not deserve to stand the trauma and agony of a criminal trial. Proceedings may be quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This, in short, is the prayer. Crl.M.C.No.4220/08 2 3. An indictee facing undeserved prosecution in a criminal case is certainly entitled to claim premature termination of the proceedings. Such premature termination must ordinarily and normally be claimed as per the ordinary provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In a warrant offence, cognizance in which is taken on the basis of a private complaint, the accused gets two opportunities to claim premature termination. Firstly, after his appearance at any stage he can attempt to persuade the learned Magistrate that the allegations against him are groundless. Alternatively and additionally he gets a further opportunity to take part in the proceedings under Section 244 Cr.P.C enquiry - pre-charge enquiry, and claim discharge under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C. This court does, of course, have the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction to invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C and quash the proceedings. It is not a question of want of jurisdictional competence of the court. It is only the question of ascertaining and identifying the proper case in which such extraordinary inherent jurisdiction is to be invoked and exercised. 4. I am not persuaded to agree that this is a fit case where such extraordinary inherent jurisdiction can or ought to be invoked. This, I am satisfied, is a fit case where the Crl.M.C.No.4220/08 3 petitioners must be relegated to claim premature termination of proceedings by discharge under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C and if not under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if unnecessary insistence were made on the personal appearance of the petitioners that would cause great hardship and prejudice to the petitioners. There is no question of any dispute regarding identity as the petitioners are the parents-in-law of the complainant. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the petitioners can be relegated to claim discharge before the learned Magistrate with appropriate observations. 6. In the result, a) This Crl.M.C is dismissed. b) Petitioners may raise the plea for discharge under Section 245(2) and/or 245(1) Cr.P.C at the appropriate stage. c) Until a decision is taken on the question of framing charge and the learned Magistrate comes to a conclusion that charges are liable to be framed under Section 246 Cr.P.C, the petitioners shall be permitted to be represented by counsel unless for reasons to be recorded the learned Magistrate otherwise directs. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.4220/08 4 Crl.M.C.No.4220/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008