IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2008 / 14TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2949 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.571/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ALUVA CRIME NO.527/05 OF THE KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER: ------------ ABY ABRAHAM, S/O ARAHAM, AGED 30 YEARS, KURUVICHIRANGARA HOUSE, KAITHAKKADU, PATTIMATTOM POST, PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUJITH MATHEW JOSE SRI.R.RAJESH (K) RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERAL, REPRESENTED BY, THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERLA, ( (FOR THE S.I. OF POLICE KALAMASSERRY POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO. 527/2005,KALAMASSERRY POLICE STATION). BY P.P. SRI. AMJAD ALI. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 2949 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of August, 2008 ORDER The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.452 read with Secs.34 and 109 IPC. The crux of the allegations is that the petitioner had abetted some other unidentified accused persons and had shared the common intention with them. They allegedly indulged in the culpable overt acts. Cognizance was taken on the basis of a report submitted by the police after due investigation. The petitioner has appeared before the learned Magistrate and was enlarged on bail, it is submitted. 2. According to the petitioner, the initiation of the proceedings against him is unjustified, in that, no charges are liable to be framed against him on law or on facts. In these Crl.M.C. No. 2949 of 2008 -: 2 :- circumstances, it is prayed that the petitioner may be saved of the undeserved trauma of the pending criminal prosecution by invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in detail. I have perused the records. 4. Premature termination of the proceedings can be claimed by an indictee facing criminal charges by resort to the ordinary provisions of the Code. Ordinarily and normally an indictee must be left to claim such premature termination of the proceedings by resort to the ordinary provisions of the Code. In the extraordinary facts of a given case, if sufficient and exceptional reasons are shown, undoubtedly this Court has the reservoir of powers under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. to invoke its extraordinary inherent jurisdiction in aid of justice and bring such prosecution to premature termination. But such powers cannot be invoked as a matter of course and satisfactory reasons must be shown for invoking such extraordinary powers without leaving the indictee to claim premature termination under the ordinary provisions of the Code. Crl.M.C. No. 2949 of 2008 -: 3 :- 5. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am certainly of opinion that the petitioner must be relegated to claim such premature termination of the prosecution against him by resort to the provisions of Sec.239/240 Cr.P.C. I find no reason to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. 6. In the result: (a) This Crl.M.C. is dismissed. (b) But it is made clear that the dismissal of this petition will not, in any way, fetter the rights of the petitioner to claim discharge under Sec.239 Cr.P.C. When a claim for discharge is made before the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate must consider such plea on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if unnecessary insistence were made on personal appearance of the petitioner before such plea for discharge is taken up for consideration and decided, that would cause very great hardship to the petitioner. I find no reason why such insistence can and ought to be made. The petitioner can appear before the learned Magistrate now through pleader and until the claim for Crl.M.C. No. 2949 of 2008 -: 4 :- discharge is considered on merits and a decision taken, the learned Magistrate need not and should not insist on the personal presence of the petitioner. If he is represented by a counsel, such personal presence need not be insisted until a decision is rendered under Sec.239/240 Cr.P.C. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge