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. 4856 of 2008(F) ------------------------------------- (CRIME NO. 31/2007 OF VENMANI POLICE STATION) ................ PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED 4 AND 5: ------------------------------------------------- 1. ALEXKUTTY, S/O. UMMEN, KIZHAKKETHIL VEEDU, CHERUVALLUR MURI, CHERIYANADU VILLAGE. 2. BINCY, W/O. ALEXKUTTY, KIZHAKKETHIL VEEDU, CHERUVALLUR MURI, CHERIYANADU VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEWS. RESPONDENTS/ STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBILC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SHEEBA CHERIYAN, D/O.P.V. CHERIAN, MUNDAKKATHIL VEEDU, KATTUKKARA MURI, THIRUVALLA. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.4856 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of January, 2009 ORDER Petitioners are accused 4 and 5 and they along with 3 others face indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 498 A I.P.C. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken. The petitioners have appeared before the learned Magistrate and have been enlarged on bail. 2. According to the petitioners, the prosecution against them is unjustified. They are entitled to premature termination of proceedings. They are not liable to stand the trauma of a trial. Some of the co-accused had come before this Court raising identical demand. They were directed by this Court to claim premature termination by discharge. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the position of the petitioners is significantly different from the others in as much as they are only the sister and brother in law of the 1st accused, ie. the husband of the defacto complainant. Their names are not shown as accused in the complaint filed by the complainant before the police on the basis of which crime was registered. It is in the course of investigation that the petitioners have subsequently been arrayed as accused 4 and 5. Crl.M.C. No.4856 of 2008 2 3. An indictee facing an undeserved criminal prosecution is certainly entitled to insist that the proceedings against him must 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 an exceptional case where the interests of justice compellingly demand such a course, this Court has the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to bring such prosecution to premature termination. But such powers cannot be invoked as a matter of course. Sufficient, satisfactory, compelling and exceptional reasons must be shown to exist to justify invocation of such extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. 4. I shall not delve deeper into the facts. Suffice it to say that I am not persuaded to agree that any such compelling reasons exist in this case which can justify or warrant invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. The petitioners have already entered appearance and were enlarged on bail, submits the learned counsel for the petitioners. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the petitioners can be relegated to claim premature termination by discharge. Appropriate directions/observations can be issued/made to protect the Crl.M.C. No.4856 of 2008 3 interests of the petitioner and to allay the apprehension of the petitioners that their interest may suffer serious harm and prejudice if their personal presence were insisted on all dates of posting. 5. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this Crl.M.C will not in any way fetter the right of the petitioners to claim premature termination of proceedings by discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. It is further directed that until a decision is taken on the question of framing charge, the petitioners' personal presence need not be insisted by the learned Magistrate and he can be permitted to appear through his counsel. If the petitioners are represented by their counsel and unless there are compelling reasons, personal presence of the petitioners shall not be insisted by the learned Magistrate until (and if) a decision is taken that charges are liable to be framed against the petitioners. 6. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioners. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-