IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2009 / 16TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 55 of 2009() ---------------------------------- C.C.NO.949 OF 2007 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS II, CHERTHALA. .................. PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NOS. 3 TO 5: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. J.V.J. VARGHESE, S/O.MATHEW VARGHESE, PATTATHANATHU VEEDU, EROOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. FREDDY JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, NEDUVANNUR, KADAVU VEETTIL, KULATHUPUZHA VILLAGE. 3. GEORGEKUTTY, S/O.DANIEL, BETHEL AVENUE, VALAKAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.ASHIK K.MOHAMMED ALI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUHAMMA POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 55 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of January, 2009 ORDER The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Sec.420 read with Sec.149 IPC. The crux of the allegations against the accused persons – 5 in number, is that they fraudulently induced the de facto complainant to part with money in furtherance of their common intention. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation. The crime, in turn, was registered on the basis of a private complaint filed before the learned Magistrate and referred to the police by the learned Magistrate under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. 2. At this juncture the petitioners i.e., accused 3 to 5, have come before this Court with this petition under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the prosecution in so far as it Crl.M.C. No. 55 of 2009 -: 2 :- relates to the petitioners. It is submitted that, in any view of the matter, the petitioners do not deserve to stand the trauma of such an undeserved prosecution. 3. An indictee facing unjustified criminal prosecution is certainly entitled to claim premature termination of proceedings. But 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 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. 4. I shall not delve deeper into the facts. Suffice it to say Crl.M.C. No. 55 of 2009 -: 3 :- that I am not persuaded to agree that any such compelling reasons exist in this case to justify the invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. This, I am satisfied, is an eminently fit case where the petitioners must be relegated to claim premature termination by discharge under Sec.239 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are already on bail and, needless hardship and suffering will be endured by them if their personal presence were insisted on all dates of posting till the claim for discharge is considered on merits and decision taken. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that while dismissing this Crl.M.C. appropriate observations can be made. 5. In the result: (a) This Crl.M.C. is dismissed; but with the specific observation that the petitioners' prayer for premature termination by discharge under Sec.239 Cr.P.C. shall be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits and appropriate decision taken as expeditiously as possible. (b) It is further observed that if the petitioners are already Crl.M.C. No. 55 of 2009 -: 4 :- on bail, their personal presence need not be insisted until the learned Magistrate takes the view that the charges are liable to be framed. Till then, they shall be permitted to appear through their counsel. 5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/