IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2008 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4568 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.306/2007 of CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): 2ND ACCUSED -------------------------- SUBAIR.N.P, S/O. LATE PAREED KUNHU E.K, PROPRIETOR, VARNACHITHRA FILMS, 40/9586, S.A.K BUILDINGS, CHITOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAVEENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. M/S. ULLATHIL MEDIA VISION, ELAMANNA MADATHIL, 59/1913, REPRESENTED BY N. RAJENDRAN, S/O. NARAYANAN UNNI, MANAGER, ELAMANNA MADATHIL, 59/1913, REPRESENTED BY N. RAJENDRAN. 3. P. RAJENDRAN, S/O. KUNHAPPAN NAIR, PROPRIETOR, GOODWAY FILM CORPORATION, G.B.C. TOWER, S.A. ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-20. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P. RAVEENDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 4568 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 120B and 420 r/w. 34 I.P.C. Altogether there are two accused persons. The petitioner herein is the second accused. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation. Petitioner has entered appearance before the learned Magistrate and has already been enlarged on bail, it is submitted. 2. According to the petitioner the allegations raised against him are absolutely incorrect and unjustified. The charge raised against him is groundless. In these circumstances it is prayed that invoking the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the proceedings against the petitioner may be terminated at the threshold and the petitioner may be saved of the undeserved trauma of such criminal prosecution initiated against him. Crl.M.C.No. 4568 of 2008 2 3. An indictee facing undeserved criminal prosecution against him can certainly claim premature termination of such proceedings under law. Normally and ordinarily such premature termination can be claimed by invoking the ordinary provisions of the Code. In an appropriate case where the interests of justice compellingly demand such course, this Court does of course have the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prematurely terminate such proceedings. But such invocation of the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction cannot be done as a matter of course. Sufficient, satisfactory, compelling and exceptional reasons must be shown to exist justifying the invocation of the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I shall carefully avoid any detailed discussion on merits about the sustainability of the allegations. Suffice it to say that at the moment I am not persuaded to agree that the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction can, ought to or deserves to be invoked. This, I am satisfied, is a fit case where the petitioner must be relegated to seek premature termination by resort to the provisions of Section 239 Cr.P.C. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if Crl.M.C.No. 4568 of 2008 3 unnecessary insistence on the personal presence of the petitioner is made, that would cause great hardship and prejudice to him. I find no reason why any court should ritualistically insist on the personal presence of the accused for the purpose of considering the plea of discharge. I am satisfied that appropriate directions can be issued to safeguard the interests of the petitioner. 5. This Crl.M.C. is dismissed, but with the observation that the petitioner shall be entitled to stake his claim for discharge and the learned Magistrate must consider such plea of discharge on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. Until such plea of discharge is considered, the petitioner, who is said to be on bail, shall be permitted to appear through his counsel. If he is represented through his counsel, the personal presence of the petitioner shall not be insisted until the court comes to a finding that charges are liable to be framed against the petitioner under Section 240 Cr.P.C. 6. Hand over the order. (R. BASANT) Judge tm Crl.M.C.No. 4568 of 2008 4