IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2008 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2325 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.652/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NADAPURAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ 1. ANITHA P. SUBHIN, WIFE OF SUBIN RESIDING AT 300/34,KRISHNA P.O., WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE, NOW RESIDING AT WBA56/MISHALIYA, THONDAYAD,CALICUT -17. 2. P.SUNDARDAS, PAROLI HOUSE, PUTHIYANGADI, CHUNGAM, WEST HILL CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PORSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SURESH BABU, SON OF KRISHNAN, RESIDING KADANTAVIDA, IYYENKODAM, VADAKARA, NADAPURAM KOZHIKODE. BY P.P. SRI. JAI GEORGE. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 2325 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of June, 2008 ORDER The petitioners are accused 3 and 4 in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.420 of the IPC. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a private complaint filed by the complainant/2nd respondent herein. The petitioners have not appeared before the learned Magistrate so far. They have come to this Court now with an application under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this Court to quash the proceedings against them. 2. What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations, on the face of it, are not justified. Going by the averments, the de facto complainant had paid some money to a private limited company. In the next breath, it is alleged that the petitioners are partners of Crl.M.C. No. 2325 of 2008 -: 2 :- the said company. According to the petitioners, on the date of the alleged occurrence, they have nothing to do with the company at all. The 1st petitioner was formerly a Director of the company. But on the date of the alleged offence, she had nothing to do with the company. The 2nd petitioner contends that he had never any connection with the company. The learned counsel contends that it is preposterous to make an allegation that the petitioners are partners of a private limited company. That shows that the complainant had not applied his mind at all before making a reckless allegation against the petitioners. The learned Magistrate also, it is lamented, does not appear to have applied his mind to the factual controversy raised. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Premature termination of a criminal prosecution is possible and permissible under the ordinary provisions of the Code. Of course, this Court does have jurisdictional competence to invoke the extraordinary inherent powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. and bring such prosecution to premature termination. But such powers cannot be invoked, as a matter of course, and sufficient, satisfactory and compelling reasons must be shown to exist. In every case where premature termination by discharge is a Crl.M.C. No. 2325 of 2008 -: 3 :- possibility, such powers cannot and need not be invoked. I find the petitioners have a case to be advanced for premature termination by discharge. They can do that under Sec.245(2) and/or 245(1) of the Cr.P.C. I do not find any compelling reasons as to why the extraordinary inherent powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. can or ought to be invoked at this juncture. I am satisfied that the interests of justice shall be made eminently by observing that the petitioners shall be at liberty to urge their claim for discharge at the stage of Sec.245 (2) and/or Sec.245(1) of the Cr.P.C. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners would have gone to the learned Magistrate and claimed discharge; but they apprehend that their personal appearance may unnecessarily be insisted to enable them to advance the plea of discharge. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I am satisfied, appropriate directions can be issued to ensure that the said anxiety of the petitioners is allayed. 5. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed; but it is specifically observed and directed that the petitioners shall be at liberty stake their claim for discharge at the stage of Sec.245(2) and/or Sec.245(1) of the Cr.P.C. Appropriate orders on merits Crl.M.C. No. 2325 of 2008 -: 4 :- must be passed by the learned Magistrate in accordance with law on such claim for discharge. For consideration of such plea, the personal presence of the petitioners shall not be insisted and they shall be permitted to appear through their pleader. It is made clear that the court below need not and should not insist on the personal presence of the petitioners till a decision is taken on the question of discharge; unless compelling reasons are there, in which event, an order, in writing, shall be issued directing the petitioners to be present for such purpose. SD/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge