IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2009 / 10TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 447 of 2009() ------------------------ CC.397/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ` NEDUMKANDOM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- JAMES ANTONY, PALATHINKAL HOUSE, NEDUMKANDOM PO., IDUKKI BY ADV. SRI.S.SACHITHANANDA PAI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. N.K.GOPINATHAN, S/O.KUNJUKUTTY, NANJILATHU VEETIL, NEDUMKANDOM PO.685553. BY P.P. SRI. P.A. SALIM. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 447 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of January, 2009 ORDER The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable under Secs.418 and 420 IPC. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation in a crime. That crime, in turn, was registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the complainant and referred to the police by the learned Magistrate under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. The crux of the allegations is that the offences under Secs.418 and 420 have been committed in respect of a transaction in partnership in which the petitioner's wife and the de facto complainant were partners. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution is totally unjustified and allegations have been Crl.M.C. No. 447 of 2009 -: 2 :- raised without specifically adverting to the relevant aspects. The petitioner is alleged to be a partner; whereas, as a matter of fact, not he but his wife is the partner. It would be injustice to compel the petitioner to face trial on the basis of such allegations. In these circumstances, the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked to bring to premature termination the prosecution against the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is already on bail at the crime stage. After cognizance is taken, the petitioner has not entered appearance before the learned Magistrate. 3. An indictee facing unjustified criminal prosecution is certainly entitled to claim premature termination of proceedings. Ordinarily and normally such premature termination must be claimed in accordance with the ordinary provisions of the Code. In a warrant offence in which cognizance has been taken on the basis of a police report, such premature termination can be claimed ordinarily under the Code by discharge under Sec.239 Cr.P.C. In an exceptional case where the interests of justice compellingly demand such course, this Court definitely has the Crl.M.C. No. 447 of 2009 -: 3 :- reservoir of powers under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. to act in aid of justice and bring such prosecution to premature termination. But invocation of the powers under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. cannot be a matter of course. Satisfactory, compelling and exceptional reasons must be shown to insist to justify invocation of such jurisdiction. I am not persuaded to agree that there are such reasons in this case which can persuade this Court to invoke such extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. Appropriate observations can be made and the interests of the petitioner can be protected. The petitioner can be relegated to claim premature termination by discharge at the stage of Sec.239/240 Cr.P.C. - the instant prosecution being one for a warrant offence on the basis of a police report. 4. In the result: (a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed in part. (b) The petitioner is relegated to stake his claim for discharge before the learned Magistrate. (c) It is further directed that until a decision is taken on the question of framing charges under Sec.240 Cr.P.C. the Crl.M.C. No. 447 of 2009 -: 4 :- personal presence of the petitioner shall not be insisted by the learned Magistrate and the petitioner shall be permitted to appear through his pleader and stake his claim for discharge in accordance with law. 5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge Crl.M.C. No. 447 of 2009 -: 5 :-