IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2008 / 28TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2409 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.256/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, ATTINGAL .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- SYAM SUBRAMONIAN, S/O.P.V.SUBRAMONIAN, HOUSE NO.1, JAWAHAR NAGAR, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENTS: STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. M.S.SUDHA, INSPECTOR, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, KERALA BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.2409 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of August, 2008 ORDER Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 186, 294(b) and 506(i) I.P.C. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is that he used abusive and threatening words against the defacto complainant, an official of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, who had visited the establishment of the petitioner in connection with her official duties. 2. The petitioner prays that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner. What is the ground ? The short contention raised is that the allegations, even if accepted, would not constitute the offences alleged. 3. At this early stage of the proceedings, I shall not embark on a detailed discussion on the acceptability of the Crl.M.C. No.2409 of 2008 2 allegations or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that I have perused Annexure-B F.I statement as also the statement of the defacto complainant recorded by the Investigating Officer. I need only mention that I am not persuaded to agree that any circumstances exist justifying or warranting the involcation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. An indictee facing criminal prosecution can claim premature termination of proceedings ordinarily and normally under the ordinary provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In an exceptional case where the interests of justice compellingly demand such course, this Court does not lack jurisdictional competence to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against an indictee. But ordinarily and normally such premature termination has got to be claimed in accordance with the ordinary provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In a summons case instituted on a police report, such premature termination can be claimed in accordance with the provisions of Section 258 Cr.P.C as explained in Kamala Rajaram v. State of Kerala [2005(3) KLT 617]. Crl.M.C. No.2409 of 2008 3 5. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am not persuaded to agree that any such compelling reasons exist which can justify or warrant the invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is for the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate and claim premature termination of proceedings by stoppage of proceedings under Section 258 Cr.P.C. If such a claim is made, needless to say, the learned Magistrate must consider the same and take appropriate decision. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-