IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3903 of 2008()
1. D.SRAO I.R.S.E. (RETD),
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :20/10/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
Crl.M.C.No.3903 of 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of October 2008
O R D E R
The petitioner faces indictment as the 3rd accused in a
prosecution for offences punishable inter alia under Section 120
(B) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Investigation is now complete. Final report has already been
filed. The petitioner has come to this court with this petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C to invoke the extraordinary inherent
jurisdiction and bring to premature termination the prosecution
against him.
2. An indictee facing undeserved prosecution in a
criminal case is certainly entitled to claim premature termination
of the proceedings. Such premature termination must ordinarily
and normally be claimed at the appropriate stage of the
proceedings before the trial court. Not that this court does not
have jurisdictional competence in an appropriate case to invoke
the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C
to bring to premature termination such undeserved criminal
prosecution, but ordinarily and normally in the absence of
Crl.M.C.No.3903/08 2
satisfactory, compelling and exceptional reasons it will only be
appropriate to relegate to such party to claim discharge under
Sections 227,239 or 245(1) or (2) Cr.P.C before the court
concerned. In the instant case, the avenue of claiming
premature termination by discharge is concededly available to
the petitioner.
3. I have scanned through the contentions raised. I shall
not embark on any further detailed discussion. Suffice it to say
that, on such perusal, I am not persuaded to agree that there
are any such compelling or exceptional reasons which should
persuade this court to invoke the extraordinary inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This, I am satisfied, is a
fit case where the petitioner must be relegated to claim
premature termination by discharge before the learned Special
Judge. Needless to say, if such a plea is raised, the learned
Special Judge must consider the same and take appropriate
decision expeditiously.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has already entered appearance and has been
enlarged on bail. If the personal presence of the petitioner were
Crl.M.C.No.3903/08 3
insisted before the court below, that would work out great
prejudice and hardship to the petitioner. In the peculiar facts
and circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that there can be a
direction to the learned Magistrate to permit the petitioner to be
represented by his counsel until a decision is taken on the
question of discharge. Only if the learned Magistrate takes the
decision that charges are liable to be framed, need the personal
presence of the petitioner be insisted. Until then, he shall be
permitted to be represented by his counsel.
5. With this observation, this petition is dismissed.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
before the court below, it is likely to take a long period of time.
The petitioner has already entered appearance and was enlarged
on bail, I need only mention that the learned Special Judge must
consider the plea of discharge as expeditiously as possible.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
Crl.M.C.No.3903/08 4
Crl.M.C.No.3903/08 5
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.C.No. of 2008
ORDER
09/07/2008