IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2008 / 21ST ASWINA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3782 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.71/2008 of CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): 2ND ACCUSED -------------------------- SABU MATHEW, MADAPALLIYMATTOM, AKALAKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN SRI.P.A.NOOR MUHAMMED SRI.ABHILASH S.FRANCIS SRI.C.K.PRASAD RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, REPRESENTED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI/SPE, KOCHI. SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY,SC,CBI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3782 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of October 2008 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment as the second accused in a prosecution for offences punishable inter alia under Section 120B and 471 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations is that a bank account was fraudulently opened in the name of the brother of the petitioner by the petitioner pretending himself to be such brother. Investigation was conducted by the CBI. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam (the designated CBI court). The petitioner has already entered appearance. He has already been enlarged on bail. At this stage, the petitioner has come to this court with a prayer that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to prematurely terminate the proceedings against him. Continuance of the prosecution works out great injustice and hardship to the petitioner. He may be saved from such trauma inflicted on him by the unnecessary initiation of the criminal adjudicatory process against him, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. Crl.M.C.No.3782/08 2 2. An indictee, against whom criminal adjudicatory process is pressed into service unjustifiably, can certainly claim premature termination of such proceedings against him. The Code provides for such premature termination of proceedings at the threshold without obliging the indictee to endure the trauma of a trial. In a warrant case, where cognizance has taken on the basis of a police report, Section 239 Cr.P.C provides for premature termination by discharge. Ordinarily and normally indictees facing unjustified proceedings against them must certainly be relegated to take resort to the provisions of Section 239 Cr.P.C to claim premature termination of proceedings. 3. This is not to say that this court lacks jurisdictional competence in an appropriate case to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to bring about such premature termination of proceedings. But satisfactory, convincing and exceptional reasons must be shown to exist to persuade this court to invoke such jurisdiction. Such powers are not to be invoked as a matter of course. 4. I shall not embark on a detailed discussion on merits. But I must say that I am not persuaded to agree that any such Crl.M.C.No.3782/08 3 exceptional reasons exist in this case which can persuade this court not to relegate the petitioner to claim discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C and undertake for itself the burden to scan through the entire evidence to ascertain whether there is any valid allegations against the petitioner to sustain the charge against him. That jurisdiction ultimately belongs to the learned Magistrate and ordinarily the learned Magistrate must be left to exercise that jurisdiction. 5. I take note of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is employed abroad. He will not be able to enter appearance before the learned Magistrate on all dates of posting and there is an urgent need to dispose of the claim for premature termination as the continuance of the proceedings is causing him unnecessary trauma and inconvenience. I am satisfied that appropriate directions can be issued: 6. In the result, a) This Crl.M.C is dismissed. b) But I hasten to observe that I have not intended to express any opinion on the claim of the petitioner for premature Crl.M.C.No.3782/08 4 termination of the criminal proceedings against him. c) It shall be open to the petitioner to claim discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C and the learned Magistrate must consider such claim as expeditiously as possible. Till such claim is considered and the learned Magistrate takes a decision to frame charges against the petitioner, personal presence of the petitioner shall not be insisted if he is represented by his counsel. Till a decision is taken under Section 246 Cr.P.C, the petitioner shall be permitted to appear through his counsel and advance his plea for discharge. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.3782/08 5 Crl.M.C.No.3782/08 6 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008