IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2008 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2014 of 2008() ------------------------- C.C.NO.97/08 ON THE FILE OF J.M.F.C, SULTHAN BATHERI PETITIONER: 2ND ACCUSED IN CC: ------------------------------ V.A.THOMAS JOSEPH, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. V.A.JOSEPH, VELLANGAL HOUSE, PANTHIPOYIL, VARAMPATTA, PADINJARATHARA POST, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ELDHO PAUL RESPONDENTS: DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEENANGADI POLICE STATION, MEENANGADI P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT. 2. P.P. ABDUL LATHEEF, S/O. HAMSA, CHALIL HOUSE, THARUVANA, PERUNTHANNOOR AMSOM, MANANTHAVADY. 3. BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. ARUMUGHAN, MULANJATTOOR THODI HOUSE, KRISHNAGIRI POST, KACHERIKUNNU,KRISHNAGIRI AMSOM, S.BATHERI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C No.2014 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2008 ORDER Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 420 I.P.C. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation. 2. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. The allegations, even if accepted, cannot at all reveal any offence against the petitioner herein under Section 420 I.P.C. 3. The counsel points out that the allegation is that the 1st accused had induced the defacto complainant to part with money on the promise that an employment abroad will be secured. Employment was not secured. Amount was not returned. There was a demand for return of the amount. The 1st accused had agreed to return the money. In discharge of that liability, the petitioner herein (A2) issued a cheque to the defacto complainant. That cheque got dishonoured. A prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is pending against the petitioner. Now merely because he had issued such a cheque, allegation is Crl.M.C No.2014 of 2008 2 raised against the petitioner under Section 420 I.P.C. The petitioner does not deserve to stand the trauma of arrest and detention. Proceedings in so far as it relates to him may be quashed, it is prayed. 4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I find that the petitioner has a serious contention to be raised to claim discharge before the learned Magistrate. Premature termination of a criminal proceedings can be claimed by an indictee under the ordinary provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In every such case where an indictee is entitled for premature termination of proceedings it is not essential or invariable that this Court must invoke its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Exceptional reasons must be shown to exist to justify invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the opinion that in this case where there is plurality of accused persons, interests of justice will be served ideally by directing the petitioner to claim premature termination of proceedings against him by discharge under Section 239/240 Cr.P.C. 5. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but with the specific observation that the petitioner can raise the plea Crl.M.C No.2014 of 2008 3 of discharge under Section 239/240 Cr.P.C before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate must consider such plea on merits and take appropriate decision.. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if personal presence of the petitioner were insisted for considering such plea of discharge under Section 239/240 Cr.P.C, it would cause great hardship, inconvenience and loss to the petitioner. I am satisfied, in the facts and circumstances of this case, that the petitioner can be permitted to appear through counsel and advance his plea of discharge under Section 239/240 Cr.P.C. I direct the learned Magistrate to consider such plea without insisting on the personal presence of the petitioner and by permitting the petitioner to be represented by his counsel till a decision is taken on the question of charge/discharge under Section 239/240 Cr.P.C. Only if the learned Magistrate decides to proceed further against the petitioner can and need his personal presence be insisted. 7. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- Crl.M.C No.2014 of 2008 4