IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 24TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 467 of 2008() ------------------------ CC.477/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, DEVICOLAM .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED NO.3 ------------------------ SARA ISSAC, AGED 44 YEARS, W/O.DR.ISSAC VARGHESE, 2B, LINK HEIGHTS, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-36. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB MATHEW MANALIL SMT.P.PRIYA SRI.P.J.SABASTIN RESPONDENTS: DEFACTO COMPLAINANT -------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, 2. PRAVEEN XAVIER, EDAKKATTUKUDY (H), MANAGING PARTNER, AUTUMN WOOD RESORTS, (CLOUD-9) CHINNAKANAL, DEVIKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.467 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of September, 2008 ORDER Petitioner is the 3rd accused and she along with 3 others faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 420 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations is that all the 4 accused persons in furtherance of their common intention with fraudulent purpose, deceived the defacto complainant to accept a cheque without any intention of getting the same honoured. Cognizance was taken on the basis of a final report filed after due investigation by the Investigating Officer. Crime in turn 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. The petitioner has already entered appearance and has been enlarged on bail. She, a woman, now has come to this Court with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against her. 2. Under law, premature termination of criminal proceedings can be claimed by an indictee under the ordinary provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In a case in which cognizance has been taken of a warrant offence on the basis of a Crl.M.C. No.467 of 2008 2 final report filed by the police, such premature termination can be claimed at the stage of Section 239/240 Cr.P.C. If the allegations are groundless, the learned Magistrate should not frame a charge against the indictee and must discharge such indictee. 3. Of course in exceptional circumstances there is ample jurisdictional competence for this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C to invoke its inherent jurisdiction to bring to premature termination such undeserved prosecutions against indictees. But such powers are not to be invoked as a matter of course. Unless satisfactory and exceptional reasons are there and unless the Court is satisfied that failure/miscarriage of justice would otherwise result, such extraordinary inherent jurisdiction is not to be invoked. 4. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am satisfied that this is a fit case where the petitioner must be relegated to claim premature termination by discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. I find no extraordinary circumstances which can persuade this Court to invoke such jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner, a woman, will be forced to endure undeserved Crl.M.C. No.467 of 2008 3 trauma if her personal appearance were to be insisted by the learned Magistrate. I am satisfied that appropriate direction can be issued/provided to save the petitioner from such apprehended undeserved trauma. The petitioner can appear through counsel and raise the plea of discharge. The petitioner's personal presence shall not be insisted by the learned Magistrate until the plea of discharge is considered on merits and appropriate decision taken. Until then, she shall be permitted to be represented by her counsel. Only if the learned Magistrate finds that charges are liable to be framed under Section 240 Cr.P.C, can and need the petitioner appear in person before the learned Magistrate. 6. I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to raise all appropriate and relevant contentions at the stage of discharge under Section 239/240 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate must consider the same on merits and take appropriate decision. 7. With the above observations, this Crl.M.C is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-