IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4606 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.696/2007 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR .................... (CRIME NO.68/2007 OF EAST POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- P.RAJEENDRAN, RESIDING AT 102, AREENA APARTMENTS, ELAMKULAM ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.VIJU THOMAS SMT.M.MEENA JOHN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. LIJO JOSEPH, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.JOSE, NEELANKAVIL HOUSE, P.O.ARIMBUR, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR. K.J.SUNNY, S/O.JOSEPH, KOLLANNUR HOUSE, P.O.MANALUR, THRISSUR. 2. S.I. OF POLICE, THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.68/07 OF THRISSUR POLICE STATION) BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.4606 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of November, 2008 ORDER Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for the offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is that he had induced the defacto complainant to part with an amount of Rs.37,500/- (Rs.1,500/- by cash and Rs.36,000/- by cheque) on the basis of a fraudulent, false and an unintended promise to procure a job for the victim. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of the final report submitted by the police after due investigation. Trial has not commenced. The matter is pending before the court below. Charges have not been framed. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C, proceedings against the petitioner may be quashed. The crux of the contention is that the allegations are false. As a matter of fact, it is only a civil liability even if the entire allegations are accepted. In these circumstances it is prayed that the proceedings may be prematurely terminated. Crl.M.C. No.4606 of 2008 2 3. An indictee facing an undeserved criminal prosecution is certainly entitled to insist that the proceedings against him must be brought to premature termination and he should not be compelled to endure the undeserved trauma of such prosecution. Such premature termination at the threshold can ordinarily be claimed under the ordinary provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In a warrant offence, of which cognizance is taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police, such premature termination can be claimed by discharge at the stage of Section 239/240 Cr.P.C. Not that this Court does not have jurisdictional competence to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to bring to premature termination such a prosecution, but it must be noted that invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot be done as a matter of course. Satisfactory, compelling and exceptional reasons must be shown to exist to justify such invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am unable to perceive any such exceptional reasons. Cognizance has already been taken and the petitioner has received summons to appear before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner can appear before the learned Crl.M.C. No.4606 of 2008 3 Magistrate and seek premature termination by discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. 4. I do not want to embark on the factual controversies. Suffice it to say that I am not satisfied that there is any such compelling reasons to justify invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. The petitioner must, in a case like the instant one, be relegated to claim premature termination by discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. 5. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. But it is made clear that if charges have not been framed, the petitioner can stake his claim for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if unnecessary insistence were made on the personal presence of the petitioner till such plea of discharge is raised, considered and decision taken, that would cause very great hardship and difficulties to the petitioner. I am satisfied that there is absolutely no necessity to insist on such personal presence to consider such plea of discharge. The petitioner can be permitted to be represented by his counsel to plead such discharge. His personal presence shall not be insisted, by the Crl.M.C. No.4606 of 2008 4 learned Magistrate until the learned Magistrate takes a view that charges are liable to be framed against the petitioner. 7. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner for production before the court below. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-