IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2008 / 6TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2842 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.148/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, VADAKKANCHERY CRIME NO.402/07 OF THE WADAKANCHERY POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER: ------------ 1. THANKAPPAN @ SANKARAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, 69 YEARS, KONIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUNDATHICODE WEST PO., 2. SANTHA, W/O.THANKAPPAN 48 YEARS, KONIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUNDATHICODE WEST PO., THRISSUR-680623. BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. ANEESH.N.V., W/O.GIRISH. KONIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUNDATHICODE WEST PO., THRISSUR-680623.NOW R/AT.NADUVIL PURAKKAL HOUSE PAMBOOR , KUTTOOR VILLAGE,THRISSUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA,/SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE WADAKANCHERY POLICE STATION, WADAKANCHERY, THRISSUR, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 2842 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of July, 2008 ORDER The petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in a prosecution alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.498A IPC. They are the father-in-law and step mother-in-law respectively of the 1st respondent. Cognizance was taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation. That crime, in turn, it is submitted, was registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the 1st respondent/the de facto complainant before the police. 2. According to the petitioners, this vexatious and false proceeding has been initiated against them at the instance of their son i.e., the husband of the 1st respondent. Disputes are pending between the petitioners and their son. The parties had come to this Court seeking police protection etc., earlier. Crl.M.C. No. 2842 of 2008 -: 2 :- Only to vex and harass the petitioners, the son has prevailed upon his wife i.e., the 1st respondent, to initiate false proceedings against the petitioners. The proceedings are bound to end in favour of the petitioners herein. But the transparent intention of the 1st respondent and her husband to vex and harass the petitioners would succeed if proceedings against the petitioners were permitted to continue. It it, in these circumstances, prayed that powers under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked to bring to premature termination of this vexatious and false proceedings against the petitioners. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. I have perused the records. At this stage, I shall not embark on any detailed discussions on merits about the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data collected. I take note of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners aged 69 and 48 years respectively shall be put to unnecessary vexation and harassment if they were to appear before the learned Magistrate to claim premature termination of the proceedings. I find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that they must be given an opportunity to claim premature termination of the proceedings. Such premature termination can ordinarily be claimed by resort Crl.M.C. No. 2842 of 2008 -: 3 :- to the ordinary provisions of the Code. In a warrant case instituted on a police report, the aggrieved party can claim premature termination by discharge under Sec.239 Cr.P.C. This Court, does, of course, have jurisdictional competence under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. in an appropriate case to bring to premature termination the proceedings by invoking its extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. But that cannot be the order of the day. Such powers cannot be invoked as a matter of course. The petitioners must therefore be relegated to claim their relief to premature termination by discharge under Sec.239 Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate. 4. But in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that if the petitioners were compelled to appear before the learned Magistrate and make physical appearance, that would work out undeserved prejudice and hardship. I am satisfied, in the facts and circumstances of this case, that appropriate directions can be issued to protect and secure the interests of the petitioners while dismissing this application and directing them to claim discharge under Sec.239 Cr.P.C. 5. In the result: (a) This Crl.M.C. is dismissed. Crl.M.C. No. 2842 of 2008 -: 4 :- (b) But it is directed that the petitioners shall be permitted to enter appearance through a counsel and claim discharge under Sec.239/240 Cr.P.C. Until a decision is taken on the question of framing charges under Sec.239/240 Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate need not and shall not insist on the personal appearance of the petitioners. Their personal appearance shall not be insisted on condition that they shall be represented by counsel of their choice until such decision is taken. 6. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge Crl.M.C. No. 2842 of 2008 -: 5 :-