IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2008 / 23RD ASHADHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2636 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.200/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, KANNUR .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2, 3 & 6: --------------------------------------------- 1. SREEDEVI, W/O. K. SREENIVAS SREENIKETHAN, PADESWAR MANGALAPURAM, KARNATAKA. 2. K. VIJULAKUMARI D/O. K. SREENIVAS DO. DO. 3. VIMAL KUMAR, S/O. K. SREENIVAS, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, RPE. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANNUR CITY POLICE STATION, KANNUR, (THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. JYOTHSANA PURUSHOTHAMAN, D/O. K.C. PURUSHOTHAMAN UJALA, OPPO. CANTONMENT PARK, CONTONMENT, KANNUR -13. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 2636 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of July, 2008 O R D E R The petitioners are accused 2, 3 and 6, they being the mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the defacto complainant, in a prosecution for the offences punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. Cognizance was taken on the basis of a final report filed by the police after due investigation. Crime, in turn, was registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the defacto complainant against the petitioners and others. It is submitted that cognizance has already been taken. The petitioners claimed discharge. The plea of discharge was rejected. The petitioners have not challenged the order framing charges. It is at this stage that they have come to this Court with a prayer that the proceedings against them may be quashed. 2. Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases and that too only in aid of justice. Normally and ordinarily an indictee, who claims Crl.M.C.No. 2636 of 2008 2 premature termination, must take resort to the ordinary provisions of the Code. In this case, admittedly, the matter has been heard at the stage of Section 239/240 Cr.P.C. and the plea for discharge has been rejected. It is for the petitioners now to take part in the trial and raise all their contentions before the learned Magistrate. If exceptional reasons are shown to exist, notwithstanding the fact that earlier the plea for discharge was rejected, this Court does have jurisdictional competence to invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. But having gone through all the relevant inputs, I am not persuaded to agree that this is a fit case where such powers under Section 482 cr.P.C. can or ought to be invoked. This, I am satisfied, is a fit case where the petitioners, whose plea for discharge is rejected, must take part in the proceedings. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if unnecessary insistence on the personal presence of the petitioners is made, that would cause great hardship and prejudice to them. The petitioners can appear before the learned Magistrate and after their plea is recorded, they can certainly claim for exemption from personal Crl.M.C.No. 2636 of 2008 3 appearance. Such request must be considered on merits and appropriate orders passed by the learned Magistrate. 4. With the above observations this Crl.M.C. is dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm