IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2008 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2120 of 2008() ------------------------- C.C.NO.1377/07 OF THE JFCM COURT-I, ATTINGAL. PETITIONER: ------------ 1. K.K. SUKUMARA PANICKER, JAYANTHI BHAVAN, MITHURUMMALA, VAMANAPURAM, NEDUMANGAD, TRIVANDRUM. 2. JAGADAMMA, D/O. KALLYANI, -DO- 3. JAYANTHI, D/O. JAGADAMMA, -DO- BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. REKHA, D/O. JALADA, KOONTHALLUR PILLA VEETTIL, CHIRAYINKEEZHU, TRIVANDRUM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI.GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 2120 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of June, 2008 ORDER The petitioners are accused 2, 3 and 4 in a prosecution initiated by the 1st respondent/complainant. Cognizance has been taken. The petitioners are father, mother and sister of the 1st accused who is the husband of the 1st respondent herein. During the currency of the valid matrimony between the the 1st accused and the 1st respondent, it is alleged that the 1st respondent had contracted another marriage with the 5th accused. Accused 6 to 8 are said to be the relatives of the 5th accused. To put it in a nutshell, the allegation is that the 1st accused had married the 5th accused on some unspecified day at Bangalore and the other accused, including the petitioners, had aided and abetted such bigamous marriage. 2. Cognizance has already been taken by the learned Crl.M.C. No. 2120 of 2008 -: 2 :- Magistrate. The petitioners have received summons to appear before the learned Magistrate. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioners have come before this Court with a prayer that powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash the proceedings in so far as it relates to them. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. They have in no way abetted, aided or condoned the alleged marriage between the 1st accused and 5th accused. In any view of the matter, these allegations are not sufficient to expose them to the trauma of such an undeserved prosecution. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has taken me to the various details. I have been taken through the averments in the complaint as also certain previous proceedings between the parties. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of opinion that the petitioners do have a case to be urged before the learned Magistrate to claim discharge under Sec.245(2) or Sec.245(1) of the Cr.P.C. as the case may be. 5. An indictee, who is obliged to face undeserved proceedings against him, can certainly claim premature termination of such proceedings by invoking the ordinary provisions of the Cr.P.C. In the given situation, Sec.245(2), if Crl.M.C. No. 2120 of 2008 -: 3 :- not Sec.245(1) of the Cr.P.C., clothes the petitioners with the option to claim premature termination of the proceedings. In every case where such premature termination is possible, it is not necessary for this Court to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. Unless compelling reasons are there and the interests of justice compellingly persuade this Court to resort to such course, it is not necessary to invoke such powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. It must be noted that as against some of the other accused, at least indisputably, the proceedings will have to continue. 6. I am not, in these circumstances, persuaded to invoke the jurisdiction under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. But I find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners 1 and 2, who are aged 80 years and 76 years, will be put to unnecessary hardship, inconvenience and loss if their personal presence were to be insisted before the learned Magistrate. I am satisfied that appropriate safeguards can be stipulated. 7. This Crl.M.C. is, in these circumstances, dismissed; but with the observation that all the petitioners shall be permitted to appear before the learned Magistrate through counsel to stake their claim for discharge. Such discharge can be claimed under Crl.M.C. No. 2120 of 2008 -: 4 :- Sec.245(1) and/or Sec.245(2) of the Cr.P.C. Until a decision is taken on the question of charge/discharge, the petitioners shall not be compelled to appear in person. Till then, their personal presence shall be dispensed with and shall be permitted to appear through counsel. Only if the learned Magistrate finds that charges are liable to be framed under Sec.246 of the Cr.P.C., need the personal presence of the petitioners be insisted by the learned Magistrate. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge