IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2008 / 24TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1852 of 2008() ------------------------- CRIME NO.344/2006 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION C.C.NO.1236/07 OF J.M.F.C-I, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER: 2ND ACCUSED ----------------------- ANNAMMA P.GEORGE, W/O.SCARIA GEORGE, PARAYIL HOUSE, H.NO.34/524, PADIVATTOM P.O., EDAPPALLY SOUTH, KOCHI-682 024. BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA (S.I. OF POLICE, PALARIVATTOM), 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 15/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.1852 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of July, 2008 ORDER Petitioner, a woman, faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 498 A I.P.C. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation. The crime in turn was registered on the basis of the complaint submitted by the defacto complainant, the daughter in law of the petitioner to the Honourable Minister for Non Resident Indians which was forwarded to the police. Altogether there are 2 accused persons. Son of the petitioner, the husband of the defacto complainant is not available in India now. 2. Cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. The 1st accused has not entered appearance so far. The petitioner has already entered appearance. The case is being adjourned from time to time to secure the presence of the 1st accused. The petitioner has at this juncture come to this Court with a prayer that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. Crl.M.C. No.1852 of 2008 2 3. What is the reason ? According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, absolutely no worthwhile allegations are raised against the petitioner to attract culpable liability under Section 498 A I.P.C in the complaint filed before the Minister. No semblance of evidence has been collected against the petitioner in the course of investigation also. In these circumstances it would be harsh, unkind and unnecessary to compel the petitioner to endure the trauma of such an undeserved prosecution, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in response to a query by this Court, submits that the petitioner has already entered appearance before the learned Magistrate and has been enlarged on bail. 4. Premature termination of proceedings can certainly be claimed by an accused person by resorting to the ordinary provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. Normally and ordinarily an indictee, who is entitled to claim such premature termination of proceedings, must claim the same by resort to such ordinary provisions of the Code. In a case like the instant one where the case is registered on the basis of the final report submitted by the police, such premature termination by discharge can be claimed at the stage of Section 239 Cr.P.C. Of course in an Crl.M.C. No.1852 of 2008 3 exceptional case and in the wake of compelling reasons, this Court would be justified in invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to bring such prosecution to premature termination. But that cannot evidently be the rule or a matter of course. Satisfactory, compelling and exceptional reasons must be shown to exist to justify such invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. 5. I do not find any such circumstances in this case. I need only observe that the petitioner can claim discharge before the learned Magistrate at the stage of Section 239/240 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in as much as the 1st accused is not available in India, the matter is unnecessarily dragging on. Personal presence of the petitioner is unnecessarily insisted and that causes great hardship, prejudice and loss to the petitioner, a woman, aged about 64 years. I am satisfied that appropriate direction can also be issued to allay this grievance of the petitioner. 6. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but it is observed that the petitioner shall be at liberty to claim discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate must consider such plea and take appropriate decision as expeditiously Crl.M.C. No.1852 of 2008 4 as possible. It is not necessary to ritualistically insist on the appearance of the 1st accused to consider such plea of discharge by the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of this case, such plea of discharge can be considered straightaway without insisting on the appearance of the 1st accused. I find no reason why insistence on the personal appearance of the petitioner should be made to facilitate such consideration of the plea of discharge. The petitioner can appear through counsel and raise such plea. I observe that until such plea of discharge is considered and a decision is taken, her personal presence need not be insisted if she is represented by a counsel before the learned Magistrate. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-