IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2008 / 30TH ASWINA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3942 of 2008 --------------------------------- ( CC.363/2007 OF JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHANGANACHERRY) .................... PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. NALINIKUTTY AMMA, PUTHUPARAMBIL VEETTIL, MISSION CHURCH BHAGAM, THURUTHY KARA, VAZHAPPALLY VILLAGE. 2. GEETHA, D/O. NALINIKUTTY AMMA, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHANGANACHERRY. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3942 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of October 2008 O R D E R Petitioners face indictment for offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b) and 323 read with 34 I.P.C. It is prayed that invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C the proceedings against the petitioners may be quashed. 2. The first contention is that the allegations are false. At this stage of the proceedings and with the available inputs, it will be hazardous for this court to venture an opinion as to whether the allegations are true or false. At any rate, the prayer to quash the proceedings on the ground that the allegations are false cannot obviously be accepted. 3. After discussions at the Bar, it is not disputed that even if the entire contentions of the counsel were accepted, the petitioners' liability to stand trial for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C cannot be disputed. The petitioners can, of course, raise the contention before the learned Magistrate when they appear and contend that the allegations under Sections 341 and 294(b) are not sustainable and while reading over the particulars Crl.M.C.No.3942/08 2 against them, those allegations should not be included. At any rate, quashing of proceedings cannot be resorted to only because two of the three allegations raised are not sustainable. 4. Finally, the learned counsel for the petitioners prays that the petitioners are persons of advanced age. The offence is a summons offence. The petitioners may be exempted from personal appearance under Section 205 Cr.P.C, it is urged. It is for the petitioners to appear through pleader and make an application under Section 205 Cr.P.C showing all the relevant circumstances. When such an application for exemption from personal appearance is made, the learned Magistrate must consider the same on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. After taking a decision on that, the learned Magistrate shall proceed accordingly. If the said request is not allowed, certainly the petitioners must be given another opportunity to appear personally before the learned Magistrate. 5. With the above observations, this petition is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.3942/08 3 Crl.M.C.No.3942/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008