IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 24TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 762 of 2008() ------------------------ CC.1128/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ADOOR .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED 3 TO 11 ------------ 1. THYAGARAJAN, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.SREEDHARAN, DAMAS VEETTIL, KANNIMAL, THUMBARA PULIMOODU JUNCTION, MARTHANDAPURAM CHERRY, MUNDAKKAL VILLAGE,KOLLAM. 2. JAYADEVAN PILLAI, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.GOVINDHA PILLAI,ALAPURATHU PUTHAN VEETTIL, THOTTUVA MURIYIL,PALLIKKAL VILLAGE. 3. ARAVINDHAKSHAN NAIR, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.KUNJURAMAN NAIR,UNNIKRISHNALAYAM, THAZHATHE VHERIYIL,PUTHOOR VILLAGE. 4. MOHANAN, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.BHASKARAN, VILAKKATTU VILAYIL VEETTIL,MUNDAPPALLI MURIYIL, PERINGATTU VILLAGE. 5. GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.GOVINDHA PILLAI, VAZHAPPALLI VEETTIL, KANNIMAL CHERIYIL, SAKTHIKULANGARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 6. GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI @ R.K., AGED 40 YEARS,S/O.NARAYANAN PILLAI,THEKKEPANFDARAVILA VEETTIL,CHEMMAKKATTU CHERRY,PANAYAM VILLAGE. 7. SASIDHARAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.KOCHU CHERUKKAN, KANNYIL VEETTIL, UDAYAMARTHANDAPURAM CHERYIL,MUNDAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 8. SREEKUMAR, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.SREEDHARAN, KANNIMEL CHERRY, SAKTHIKULANGARA VILLAGE,KOLLAM. 9. SAJEEV @ PODIMON, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN, ATHIRA BAHVAN,PALLICKAL MURI, PALLICKAL VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.RAJA SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR Crl.MC.No. 762 of 2008 - 2 - RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2008, ALONG WITH CRMC NO. 2866 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. Nos.762 and 2866 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of September, 2008 ORDER Petitioners are 11 accused persons who face indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 408, 409 and 477 A r/w 34 I.P.C. Accused 1, 2 and 3 were Secretary, Works Manager and the honorary President of a Co- operative Society, whereas accused 4 to 11 were members of the governing committee. The crux of the allegations against the petitioners is that they, in furtherance of their common intention, had caused loss to the tune of Rs.9,47,869.60 to the Society, ie. The Quilon Automobile Employees Co-operative Society, during the period 01.07.96 to 30.06.97. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation. The petitioners have already entered appearance and have been enlarged on bail, it is submitted at the Bar. Charges have not been framed. At this stage, the petitioners have come before this Court with these petitions praying that the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to quash the prosecution against them. Crl.M.C. Nos.762 and 2866 of 2008 2 2. Arguments have been heard. I shall at this early stage of the proceedings scrupulously avoid any detailed discussion on merits about the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data collected. I take note of the fact that the prayer is to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction to prematurely terminate the criminal prosecution against the petitioners. 3. It is trite that an indictee who is forced to face an undeserved criminal prosecution against him can claim premature termination of proceedings under the ordinary provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In a case where cognizance has been taken of a warrant offence allegedly committed by such indictee on the basis of a final report submitted by the police, premature termination of proceedings can ordinarily and normally be claimed under Section 239/240 Cr.P.C. Discharge can be claimed at the threshold even before trial proceeds further. Ordinarily and normally such indictee must be relegated to claim premature termination by discharge at the stage of Section 239 Cr.P.C. 4. This is not to say that this Court does not have jurisdictional competence in an appropriate case to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings Crl.M.C. Nos.762 and 2866 of 2008 3 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. But extraordinary and compelling reasons must be shown to exist. The mere fact that a contention is raised that the allegations are untrue will not normally persuade this Court to invoke such extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. I shall not embark on a more detailed discussion. Suffice it to say that after hearing the counsel, I am not persuaded to agree that any such compelling circumstances do exist to justify invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. This, I am satisfied, is an eminently fit case where the petitioners, who, it is submitted at the Bar, have already entered appearance and have been enlarged on bail, must be directed to seek premature termination by discharge at the stage of Section 239 Cr.P.C. 5. The contention that the petitioners may be forced to endure undeserved trauma if their personal appearance were insisted on all dates of posting is taken into consideration by me. Appropriate directions can of course be issued to avoid such an undeserved trauma. 6. I may hasten to observe that I have not intended to express any final opinion on the liability of the petitioners to stand trial on the allegations raised in the final report. I do only Crl.M.C. Nos.762 and 2866 of 2008 4 choose to take the view that there is no reason to justify invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C and that the petitioners must be relegated to claim premature termination by discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate must consider the plea under Section 239 Cr.P.C and take appropriate decision in the matter. 7. In the result, these Crl.M.Cs are dismissed. I may further observe that if the petitioners are represented by their counsel, the learned Magistrate need not insist on their personal presence at the stage of hearing on the question of framing charge. They shall be permitted to be represented by their counsel. Only if the learned Magistrate feels that charges are liable to be framed and their plea has to be recorded, need the learned Magistrate insist on the personal presence of the petitioners. Till then, if they are represented by their counsel, personal appearance shall not be insisted. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-