IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 2ND ASWINA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3571 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.2464/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NOS 2 AND 5 ---------------------------------- 1. PRAVEEN THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS CHITTILAPPALLY, CHITTILAPPALLY HOUSE, KOORKANJERI, THRISSUR. 2. MANJU PRAVEEN, W/O.PRAVEEN, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. RESPONDENTS(S): STATE AND COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEDUPUZHA POLICE STATION (CRIME NO.323/2005) REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. RAJESH C.MUTTATHU, S/O.M.P.CHAKKUNNY, MUTTATHU HOUSE, KURIACHIRA, THRISSUR-6. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3571 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of September 2008 O R D E R Petitioners are accused 2 and 5 in a prosecution for offences punishable inter alia under Sections 420 and 406 read with 34 I.P.C. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a private complaint. It essentially is a matrimonial dispute, it is submitted. Initially, a complaint was filed and the same was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The police submitted a negative final report. Thereafter, a protest complaint was filed raising identical allegations. The grievance is that cognizance has been taken on the basis of such private complaint. There is no specific allegation that there has been any procedural inadequacy in the act of taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate. The short contention is that the allegations are false and hence the proceedings are liable to be quashed. The petitioners do not deserve to endure the trauma and tedium of a criminal trial. The proceedings against the petitioners may be prematurely brought to termination, it is prayed. Crl.M.C.No.3571/08 2 2. Premature termination of undeserved criminal proceedings can certainly be claimed by an indictee. Ordinarily and normally such premature termination must be claimed by discharge at the appropriate stage. In a prosecution for a warrant offence on the basis of a private complaint, such discharge can be claimed either at the stage of Section 245(2) Cr.P.C or later at the stage of Section 245(1) Cr.P.C. Of course, in an exceptional case where the interests of justice compellingly demand resort to such course, this court has the jurisdictional competence to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. But such jurisdiction is not to be invoked as a matter of course. Ordinarily and normally, the indictees must be relegated to claim premature termination from the court before which the proceedings are pending. 3. I shall scrupulously avoid any detailed discussion on merits about the facts involved in this case. I am satisfied on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs that this is a fit case where the petitioners must be relegated to claim premature termination by discharge at the stage of Section 245(2) or 245(1) Cr.P.C. Crl.M.C.No.3571/08 3 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the accused persons shall be put to great inconvenience and hardship if their personal presence were insisted on all dates of posting. I am satisfied that direction can be issued that the learned Magistrate need not insist on the personal presence of the petitioners/accused. They can be permitted to be represented by their counsel. At the stage of Section 245(2) and 245(1) Cr.P.C, personal presence of the petitioners need not be insisted by the learned Magistrate. They shall be permitted to be represented by their counsel. Only if the learned Magistrate feels that charges are liable to be framed under Section 240 Cr.P.C need the personal presence of the petitioners be insisted. Till then, the petitioners shall be permitted to be represented through their counsel. 5. With the above observations, this Crl.M.C is dismissed. The non-bailable warrant issued shall not, needless to say, be executed till the court decides that charges are liable to be framed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.3571/08 4 Crl.M.C.No.3571/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008