IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4559 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.697/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, PARAVUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SATHI MENON, AGED 53 YEARS, W/O.KRISHNANKUTTY MENON, GEETHANJALI, PALEKAZHIPPU KARA, CHOONKAM ROAD, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD SRI.JOSEPH ABRAHAM (KOTTAYAM) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NORTH PARAVOOR POLICE STATION, NORTH PARAVOOR. 3. SREEKUMAR, S/O.T.N.B.PILLAI, SREERAMANILAYAM, VALLUVALLI KARA, KOTTUVALLY VILLAGE, PARAVOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4559 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of November 2008 O R D E R The petitioner is the second accused and she faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with 34 I.P.C. Her son is the first accused. The de facto complainant is the cousin of a girl by name Saritha. The crux of the allegations is that the accused made a false representation that the first accused is having employment at Qatar. On the false allegation/representation, the marriage between the said Saritha and the first accused was proposed. On the eve of the engagement ceremony, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was demanded and paid by way of cheque. Marriage was scheduled to take place on a specified date. On the eve of the marriage, tall demand was made for a further amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. This generated doubts about the bona fides of the accused and it dawned on the de facto complainant that attempt of the petitioner was always to defraud and deceive the de facto complainant and his relatives. Accordingly, a private complaint was filed and the same was referred to the Crl.M.C.No.4559/08 2 police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Crime was registered. Investigation was conducted. Final report has been filed. Cognizance has already been taken. 2. The petitioner has now come before this court with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C with a prayer that the prosecution against her may be quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. 3. What is the reason? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if all the allegations raised against her son/first accused were accepted, there is absolutely nothing to indicate complicity of the petitioner. The facts that it is alleged that the petitioner had received a cheque and that she was also a party to the fixation of the marriage or even the later allegation that an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was demanded by her and her son/the first accused do not attract culpability against the petitioner, submits the counsel. The allegation against the petitioner is groundless and therefore the proceedings may be quashed, it is prayed. 4. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and Crl.M.C.No.4559/08 3 contours of the jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Complicated and disputed questions of fact cannot be attempted to be resolved in such proceedings. An indictee facing an undeserved criminal prosecution can certainly claim premature termination of the proceedings against him. Such premature termination must ordinarily be claimed under the ordinary provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In a prosecution for a warrant offence instituted on the basis of a police report, such premature termination can be claimed by discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. 5. Not that this court cannot ever invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash an undeserved prosecution; but satisfactory, compelling and exceptional reasons must be shown to exist to invoke and exercise the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. Such jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a matter of course. 6. I shall carefully avoid any detailed discussion about the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that I take note of the allegations Crl.M.C.No.4559/08 4 raised regarding representations made by the petitioner, receipt of amounts by her, later demand of further amounts by her etc., I am satisfied that this is certainly not a fit case where such extraordinary inherent jurisdiction can and ought to be invoked. 7. In the result, this Crl.M.C is dismissed. I may hasten to observe that I have only intended to consider whether the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction deserves to be invoked or not. The dismissal of this Crl.M.C will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to raise all appropriate and relevant contentions before the learned Magistrate and claim discharge at the threshold under Section 239 Cr.P.C and if that be not successful to claim acquittal at the later stages of the trial. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Crl.M.C.No.4559/08 5 Crl.M.C.No.4559/08 6 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008