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. 45 of 2009() ----------------------- CC.176/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- MATHEW BENO G JACOB,AGED 46 S/O.LATE P.M.CHACKO, PANATHOTTAM, KOTTANGAL P.O. PATHANAMTHITTA 686547. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU HARIHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. MINI PRASAD,AGED 40,W/O.PRASAD MON, NEYYUNNIL VEEDU,THAZHATHUVADAKARA P.O. KOTTAYAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.45 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of January, 2009 ORDER Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 506 (ii) I.P.C. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a private complaint filed by the complainant, ie. the 1st respondent herein. According to the petitioner, the allegations raised against the petitioner are groundless. The allegations are raised with the sole intention of vexing and harassing the petitioner. The petitioner is, in these circumstances, not liable to stand the trauma of an undeserved criminal prosecution against him. He prays that the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 2. An indictee facing an unjustified criminal prosecution is certainly entitled to claim premature termination of the proceedings against him. Normally and ordinarily such premature termination must be claimed in accordance with the ordinary provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Of course, in an exceptional case where the interests of justice Crl.M.C. No.45 of 2009 2 compellingly demand such a course, this court has the reservoir of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to so bring the undeserved prosecution to premature termination. But the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not to be invoked as a matter of course. Sufficient, satisfactory, compelling and exceptional reasons must be shown to exist to justify the invocation of such extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. Ordinarily in all other cases parties can be relegated to claim premature termination before the Court where the case is pending. 3. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am unable to perceive any such exceptional reasons. This I am satisfied is an eminently fit case where the petitioner can be relegated to claim discharge under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C and if that be not successful, under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C. If the petitioner raises such a plea, the same has to be considered by the learned Magistrate and appropriate decision taken. I am not hence persuaded to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that needless harassment and vexation would result if the personal presence of the petitioner were insisted by the learned Crl.M.C. No.45 of 2009 3 Magistrate. Until the plea of discharge is considered and a decision taken, the petitioner may be permitted to appear through counsel and advance the plea for discharge, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find merit in that submission in the facts and circumstances of this case. I take note of the fact that the police had earlier referred the crime after due investigation. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that while dismissing this Crl.M.C, appropriate direction can be issued to safeguard the interests of the petitioner. 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 petitioner to claim premature termination of proceedings by discharge under Section 245(2) and/or 245(1) Cr.P.C. It is further directed that until a decision is taken on the question of framing charge, the petitioner's personal presence need not be insisted by the learned Magistrate and he can be permitted to appear through his counsel. If he is represented by his counsel and unless there are compelling reasons, personal presence of the petitioner shall not be insisted by the learned Magistrate until (and if) a decision is taken that charges are liable to be framed against the petitioner. Crl.M.C. No.45 of 2009 4 6. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-