IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2008 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2175 of 2008() ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ RAGHUVARAN, S/O.PAPPAN, KURASSERIL VEETTIL, WARD NO.V., CHERTHALA MUNICIPALITY, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.PAVITHRAN RESPONDENTS: / ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI. AMJAD ADLI. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 2175 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June, 2008 ORDER The petitioner faces indictment as the 3rd accused in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Secs.468 and 471 of the IPC. Altogether, there are 3 accused persons. The allegations are raised, inter alia, under Sec.120B of the IPC. All the 3 accused persons were allegedly employees of a Service Co-operative Bank. According to the petitioner, he works in a different Branch altogether and has absolutely no connection with the alleged culpable conduct of accused 1 and 2. 2. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner has already entered appearance and has been enlarged on bail. The matter stands posted for Crl.M.C. No. 2175 of 2008 -: 2 :- steps under Sec.239/240 of the Cr.P.C. 3. The petitioner has rushed to this Court with this petition to contend that he does not deserve to endure the trauma of continuance of the proceedings against him. According to him, he has nothing to do with the alleged culpable conduct of accused 1 and 2. He further contends that there is no semblance of material placed before the learned Magistrate by the Investigating Officer which can, in any way, even remotely, implicate the petitioner herein. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the prosecution, in so far as it relates to the petitioner, may be quashed. 4. Has the petitioner raised this plea before the learned Magistrate after he entered appearance? If not, why he has not been done the same? An indictee, facing an unjustified prosecution even on the basis of a report submitted by the police after due investigation, is conferred rights by the Code to claim premature termination the proceedings against him. In a case launched, on the basis of final report submitted by the police, such premature termination by discharge can be claimed at the stage of Sec.239/240 of the Cr.P.C. The mere possibility that such discharge can be successfully claimed is not by itself a sufficient reason in every case to justify the invocation of the Crl.M.C. No. 2175 of 2008 -: 3 :- powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. Normally and ordinarily, premature termination of the proceedings can and must be claimed by an indictee under the ordinary provisions of the Code. Not that this Court does not have jurisdictional competence in an appropriate case to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. to bring such proceedings to premature termination; but sufficient, satisfactory and compelling reasons must be shown to exist to justify the invocation of such extraordinary jurisdiction. 5. I do not intend to express any final opinion on merits. But I am certainly of opinion that there are no extraordinary circumstances which should persuade this Court now to invoke the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. to bring the prosecution to premature termination. The petitioner can raise the plea for premature termination by discharge under Sec.239/240 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate and if the plea for discharge is raised, the learned Magistrate must consider the same anxiously and take appropriate decision in the matter. 6. I take note of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that if unnecessary insistence were made on personal appearance of the petitioner till a decision on the question of framing charge is taken, that would cause very great hardship and difficulties to the petitioner. The petitioner can Crl.M.C. No. 2175 of 2008 -: 4 :- apply before the learned Magistrate for permission to appear through counsel until a decision is taken on the question of framing charge/discharge under Sec.239/240 of the Cr.P.C. Such request does appear to be legitimate to me. Needless to say, the learned Magistrate must expeditiously consider such plea and take appropriate decision. 7. With the above observations, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge