IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 4TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 13TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3378 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.290/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOZHIKODE CRIME NO.23/2008 OF CHEVAYUR POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER: PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 3 AND 4 -------------------------------------------- 1. NAFEENA, 20 YEARS, D/O LATE MUHAMMED CHOMATHOOR PARAMBA, CHERUVATTAKADAVU, PO.PARAMBIL, KOZHIKODE. 2. JASEELA, AGED 18 YEARS, D/O LATE MUHAMMED, CHOMATHOOR PARAMBA, CHERUVATTAKADAVU, PO.PARAMBIL, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANJAY SRI.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.3378 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of September, 2008 ORDER Petitioners are accused 3 and 4 in a prosecution for the offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 498 A I.P.C. They are the nieces in law, aged 22 years and 19 years, of the complainant. Cognizance was taken and process was issued to the petitioners. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are young girls of marriageable age. Only general allegations are raised against them. The allegations are raised with oblique motive and with the transparent purpose of vexing and harassing the husband and his relatives in an attempt of the complainant to somehow secure settlement of the disputes. Great hardship and prejudice would result if the petitioners were compelled to endure the trauma of indictment in a criminal prosecution. Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked and the proceedings against the petitioners, ie. accused 3 and 4, may be quashed, it is prayed. 3. I shall carefully avoid any detailed expression of opinion on the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that I am not persuaded to agree that there are any sufficient reasons to justify the Crl.M.C. No.3378 of 2008 2 extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to prematurely terminate the proceedings against the petitioners. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners finally submits that, at any rate, personal presence of the petitioners may not be insisted. They may be permitted to appear through counsel, it is prayed. I find the said request to be absolutely reasonable. I am satisfied that while dismissing this Crl.M.C appropriate observations to safeguard the interests of the petitioners can be made. 5. In the result: i) This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed; ii) But it is directed that the learned Magistrate shall permit the petitioners to appear through counsel. They shall be permitted to plead discharge under Section 245(2) and/or 245(1) Cr.P.C. Only if the learned Magistrate finds that charges are liable to be framed against them under Section 246 Cr.P.C, need the learned Magistrate insist on the personal presence of the petitioners. Till then if they are represented by their counsel, and if there is no compelling need their presence shall be dispensed with under Section 205 Cr.P.C. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- Crl.M.C. No.3378 of 2008 3