IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2008 / 18TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2581 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.317/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER/A1: ------------ SATHEESH KUMAR, MANAGING PARTNER, JEMINI ASSOCIATES, TOWNHALL ROAD, THALASSERY, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AHAMMED RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. MURALEEDHARAN T., THIRIKKOTTU HOUSE, CHEMMARUTHOOR P.O., VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE -04. 2. DHARMMESH A. THRIVEDI, ZONAL MANAGER, M/S ANCHOR DAEWOO INDUSTRIES LTD., POT NO. 21/1, DEWAKA TAIWAD VILLAGE DEWAKA, NANI DAMAN 396 210 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 2581 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of July, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner is the first accused in a private complaint filed by the first respondent before the learned Magistrate. Altogether there are two accused. The second respondent herein is the second accused. In the complaint, the complainant alleged that accused 1 and 2 had entered into a conspiracy. The complainant is the employee of the first accused and the first accused is the agent of the second accused. According to the complainant the accused persons had hatched a conspiracy. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, the petitioner had allegedly sent the complainant along with the second accused to various places. 2. At Trivandrum the complainant was threatened, intimidated, illegally detained and his signature was extorted and obtained in certain documents under coercion and violence by the second accused and two others. It is the case of the Crl.M.C.No. 2581 of 2008 2 complainant that the second accused and the said two others had indulged in the said crime in pursuance of a conspiracy between accused 1 and 2. According to the complainant, he was taken away from Trivandrum by the petitioner herein (A1) and dropped at Ernakulam. It is alleged that such conduct after the incident was also in pursuance of the conspiracy between accused 1 and 2 to ensure that the complainant does not file a prompt complaint before the police. 3. The complaint was filed before the learned Magistrate. Cognizance was taken. The sworn statements of two other witnesses cited in the complaint were also taken by the learned Magistrate. 4. Though cognizance is seen taken as early as in 2005, it is submitted that the petitioner has not entered appearance so far. He has now come before this Court with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings initiated against him. 5. What is the reason? Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is by now trite, are to be invoked sparingly and in exceptional circumstances for the purpose of ensuring that the criminal adjudicatory process is not abused and to ensure that the interests of Crl.M.C.No. 2581 of 2008 3 justice do not fail. Such jurisdiction is certainly not be invoked as a matter of course. 6. Called upon to explain the exceptional circumstances, if any, which can justify the invocation of the jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C., the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations are false and they do not indicate the complicity of the petitioner for the offence of conspiracy. In any view of the matter, the present allegations raised in the complaint are not supported by the earlier allegations made before the local police and the Superintendent of Police as per Annexs. B and C, which were produced along with the complaint. In these circumstances it is prayed that the prosecution launched against the petitioner may now be quashed. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. I am unable to agree with the learned counsel. No legal defect or inadequacy is seen committed by the learned Magistrate in taking cognizance. The only contention raised is that the allegations are false. Of course, there is a further related contention that the allegations now raised in the complaint are not supported by earlier Crl.M.C.No. 2581 of 2008 4 complaints before the police, which are produced as Annexs. B and C. I shall carefully avoid any detailed discussion on the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that I am not persuaded to agree that there are any circumstances that can justify or warrant the invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. I shall carefully avoid any further discussions, lest the observations made by the court in the course of such discussion may fetter the options of the parties and prejudice their interests. I am of the opinion that the question whether the allegations are true or false cannot be decided in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is for the petitioner to take part in the proceedings and claim discharge at the stage of S.245(2) or 245(1) Cr.P.C. Until a decision is taken on the question of framing charge/discharge at the stage of Section 245(2) or 245(1), the learned Magistrate should not ritualistically insist on the personal presence of the petitioner on all dates of posting. The petitioner's plea for discharge under Section 245(2) straight away and S. 245(1), if the said earlier plea does not succeed, after the enquiry Crl.M.C.No. 2581 of 2008 5 under Section 244 Cr.P.C. must be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. 9. With the above observations this Crl.M.C. is dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm