IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2009 / 30TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2601 of 2009() ----------------------------------- CC.729/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, WADAKKANCHERY .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 3 & 4 -------------------------------------------- 1. JESSY SAMUEL, VADKKETHIL HOUSE, KAIRALIPURAM DESOM, MUNDUKOTTACKAL P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. JIMMY, MANJUMMEL KUDIYIL HOUSE, KANANKAI DESOM, ARAVANJAL P.O., PAYYANNOOR. BY ADV. MR.V.K.SUNIL RESPONDENTS/ STATE & THE DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. JANCY DEVASSI, VARIKKASSERI HOUSE, RAJEEV BHAVAN COLONY, MAYANNOOR, THRISSUR. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.AMJAD ALI. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.2601 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 21st August 2009 O R D E R Petitioners are accused 3 and 4 in C.C.729/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Wadakkancherry. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate on Annexure-III final report submitted by the police, for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Second respondent is the defacto complainant and the person who was allegedly cheated. First petitioner is the sister and second petitioner is the son of the sister of the first accused. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that even if the allegation in Annexure-I is accepted, petitioners are in no way connected with the offences as they only participated in the betrothal ceremony and in such circumstances, the case as against them is to be quashed. CRMC 2601/09 2 2. Learned counsel also submitted that if petitioners are to seek an order for discharge, from the trial Magistrate and if presence of the petitioners is to be insisted, they have to travel all the way from Pathanamthitta to Payyannur to defend the case along with the sureties and in such circumstances, petitioners may be permitted to seek order of discharge after dispensing with their presence. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as petitioners did not appear, a non bailable warrant was issued and it is pending. 3. On hearing the learned counsel, I find no reason to exercise the extra ordinary inherent powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal, to quash the complaint in this petition. Petitioners are at liberty to move a petition for discharge under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure to discharge before the Magistrate and raise all the contentions raised herein. If petitioners file an application under Section 205 of Code of Criminal Procedure to dispense with their presence for the purpose of moving and hearing the application under Section 239 of Code CRMC 2601/09 3 of Criminal Procedure, learned Magistrate not to insist for the personal appearance of the petitioners. Petition is disposed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.