IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2008 / 11TH ASWINA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3700 of 2008() -------------------------------------- (C.C.NO.65 OF 2008 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,THRISSUR) PETITIONER:ACCUSED NO.6: -------------------------------------------- C.JAYASREE, W/O.SREEDHARAN, ATHIYARATH HOUSE, MELADOOR P.O., ANNAMANDA, THRISSUR, PIN – 680 741. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON RESPONDENTS:COMPLAINANT & STATE: -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MONIKUMAR, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.THAYYAN, VELLIYATHU PARAMBIL HOUSE, THAZHAKKADE VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 3700 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner is the 6th accused in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 468 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations is that she, in her capacity as an employee of the Co-operative Department, had conspired with others to manufacture and concoct a forged document. According to the petitioner she is absolutely innocent. She was not present in the office on the date when the allegedly forged documents were born. She has nothing to do with the documents in question. Unfortunately cognizance has been taken against her. She received summons and she appeared before Court on 5.7.2008. Pendency of this prosecution is causing her great difficulties. In these circumstances it is prayed that there is urgent necessity to bring to premature termination this vexatious prosecution against her. It is contended that an exhaustive vigilance enquiry has already been conducted and it has been realised and accepted by the Vigilance Department that the petitioner has no Crl.M.C.No. 3700 of 2008 2 complicity whatsoever. In these circumstances it is prayed that the proceedings against the petitioner may be quashed invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. Premature termination of an undeserved criminal prosecution can be claimed by an indictee under the ordinary and normal provisions of the Code. Ordinarily and normally such premature termination in a case of warrant offence taken cognizance of on a private complaint must be taken at the stage of Section 245(1), if not earlier under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. 3. I have gone through the Vigilance Report. I find that the petitioner must certainly be heard on her request for premature termination. But I am of the opinion that the petitioner having already appeared before the court below and having already been enlarged on bail, the interests of justice will be best served by directing the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichur to consider the petitioners prayer for discharge expeditiously. The petitioner can claim discharge under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. straight away or she can claim discharge at the stage of Section 245(1) Cr.P.C. after the pre-charge enquiry under Crl.M.C.No. 3700 of 2008 3 Section 244 Cr.P.C. is conducted. If the petitioner stakes a claim for premature termination under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. I expect the learned C.J.M. to straight away consider the same and pass appropriate orders. Till the Magistrate takes a decision to frame charges under Section 246 Cr.P.C., the personal presence of the petitioner need not be insisted and she shall be permitted to be represented through her counsel. If such a claim for discharge under Section 245(2) is raised, I expect the learned C.J.M. to consider the same expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date on which such claim is filed. 4. With the above observations this Crl.M.C. is dismissed. 5. Hand over the order. (R. BASANT) Judge tm