IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2008 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4962 of 2008() ------------------------- CRIME NO. 31/2007 OF VENMANI POLICE STATION PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 2 TO 4 ----------------------------- 1. PONNAMMA VARGHESE AGED 78 YEARS, GLORI BHAVNIL (PANNANGATT VADAKETH) KODUKULANJIMURI, PALA VILLAGE. 2. MATHEW S/O. THOMAS, MATHEW VILLA, POZHUVALLUR DEXOM, KODUKULANTHIKORROD, VENMANI VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SHEEBA CHERIYAN D/O. P.V.CHERIAN, MUNDAKKATHIL VEEDU, KATTUKARA MURI, THIRUVALLA. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 4962 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of December, 2008 O R D E R The petitioners, along with the co-accused, face indictment in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. The defacto complainant is the wife of the first accused. The first petitioner/A2 is the mother of the first accused, whereas the second petitioner/A3 is the cousin of the first accused. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of the complaint filed before the Circle Inspector of Police, which was forwarded to the Sub Inspector for registration of the crime. 2. The petitioners have now come before this Court with a prayer that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash the prosecution against them. 3. What is the ground? The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations against the petitioners are groundless. In these circumstances the petitioners do not deserve to stand the trauma of a protracted trial. Crl.M.C.No. 4962 of 2008 2 4. An indictee facing undeserved criminal prosecution against him can certainly claim premature termination of such proceedings under law. In a warrant offence in which cognizance has been taken on the basis of the final report submitted by the police, such premature termination can be claimed at the stage of Section 239 Cr.P.C. Normally and ordinarily the parties were to be relegated to claim premature termination by invoking the jurisdiction under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Of course, in an exceptional case where the interests of justice compellingly demand such course, this Court has the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prematurely terminate such proceedings. 5. I have gone through the complaint/F.I. statement. I have seen the final report submitted by the police. I shall not embark on a detailed discussion on the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data placed before court. Suffice it to say that I am not persuaded that there is any justification in the prayer for invocation of the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This, I am satisfied, is a fit case where the petitioners must be relegated to claim discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Crl.M.C.No. 4962 of 2008 3 6. This Crl.M.C. is dismissed without any fetter on the right of the petitioners to claim discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. It is further directed that until the plea of discharge is considered and a decision taken, personal presence of the petitioners shall not be insisted, if they are represented by their counsel. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that unnecessary hardship and inconvenience will result if personal presence of the petitioners were to be insisted till the plea of discharge is considered under Section 239 Cr.P.C. The petitioners can appear before the learned Magistrate and after they were enlarged on bail, the learned Magistrate need not insist on their personal presence until the claim for discharge is considered on merits and appropriate decision taken. If and until a decision is taken that charges are liable to be framed, their personal presence need not be insisted and they can be permitted to appear through their counsel. (R. BASANT) Judge tm