IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2008 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4888 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.535/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHALAKUDY .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- MANOJ KUMAR, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.LATE.DAVIS, AMBOOKEN HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMBHAGAM, PUTHENCHIRA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STAE --------------------------------- 1. SHERLY, W/O.ANTU, AGED 42 YEARS, AMBOOKEN HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMBHAGAM, PUTHENCHIRA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY P.P. SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.4888 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of December, 2008 ORDER The petitioner – a member of the noble profession of law, faces indictment in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Sec.354 IPC. The offence is a summons offence, the same being punishable with imprisonment for a period of two years or fine or both. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police. The petitioner has received summons to appear before the learned Magistrate as an accused. He has already entered appearance through counsel. At this stage, the petitioner has come to this Court with this petition under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. According to the petitioner, the allegations are totally false and are made with calculated design to vex and harass the petitioner. Inasmuch as the decision in K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala (1992 (1) Crl.M.C. No.4888 of 2008 -: 2 :- KLT 1) has been overruled by the decision in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal (2004 (3) KLT 382 (SC)), the petitioner is unable to seek premature termination of the proceedings against him before the learned Magistrate. Hence the petitioner has come to this Court with this petition claiming quashing of proceedings under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. 2. I have already adverted to this aspect in detail in Kamala Rajaram v. State of Kerala (2005 (3) KLT 617). In respect of a summons offence, cognizance of which has been taken on the basis of a private complaint, it may be correct to contend that the indictee has no option to request this Court to invoke the jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. But in Kamala Rajaram (supra) it was held that in a summons offence, cognizance of which has been taken on the basis of a police report premature termination of the proceedings can be claimed under Sec.251 read with Sec.258 Cr.P.C. At that stage, it can be urged that no substance is there in the allegation to justify a reading over of the particulars of the offence under Sec.251 Cr.P.C. and that such proceedings can be dropped prematurely under Sec.258 Cr.P.C. Crl.M.C. No.4888 of 2008 -: 3 :- 3. In this view of the matter, I am satisfied that the petitioner can be relegated to claim premature termination under Sec.251 read with Sec.258 Cr.P.C. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that in the wake of such equally efficacious alternative remedy, it is not necessary for this Court to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that great prejudice, hardship and loss would result if the personal presence of the petitioner were insisted to enable him to claim such premature termination of the proceedings. I find no reason why the personal presence of the petitioner can, need or ought to be insisted. The petitioner can apply for exemption under Sec.205 Cr.P.C. and it is directed that until the plea for dropping of the proceedings under Sec.251 read with Sec.258 Cr.P.C. is considered by the learned Magistrate and a decision taken, the personal presence of the petitioner need not be insisted by the learned Magistrate. If the petitioner is represented by a counsel, such personal presence need not be insisted. Personal presence need be insisted only if the learned Crl.M.C. No.4888 of 2008 -: 4 :- Magistrate is satisfied that the particulars of the offence under Sec.251 Cr.P.C. deserve to be read over to the witness and that dropping the proceedings under Sec.258 Cr.P.C. is not necessary. 5. With the above observations, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge