C.Jayasree vs Manikumar on 3 October, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 3700 of 2008()



1. C.JAYASREE
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. MANIKUMAR
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.GOPINATH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :03/10/2008

 O R D E R
                            R. BASANT, J.
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                   Crl.M.C.No. 3700 of 2008
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
            Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2008

                               O R D E R

The petitioner is the 6th accused in a prosecution for

offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 468 I.P.C. The

crux of the allegations is that she, in her capacity as an employee

of the Co-operative Department, had conspired with others to

manufacture and concoct a forged document. According to the

petitioner she is absolutely innocent. She was not present in the

office on the date when the allegedly forged documents were

born. She has nothing to do with the documents in question.

Unfortunately cognizance has been taken against her. She

received summons and she appeared before Court on 5.7.2008.

Pendency of this prosecution is causing her great difficulties. In

these circumstances it is prayed that there is urgent necessity to

bring to premature termination this vexatious prosecution

against her. It is contended that an exhaustive vigilance enquiry

has already been conducted and it has been realised and accepted

by the Vigilance Department that the petitioner has no

Crl.M.C.No. 3700 of 2008
2

complicity whatsoever. In these circumstances it is prayed that the

proceedings against the petitioner may be quashed invoking the

jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

2. Premature termination of an undeserved criminal prosecution

can be claimed by an indictee under the ordinary and normal

provisions of the Code. Ordinarily and normally such premature

termination in a case of warrant offence taken cognizance of on a

private complaint must be taken at the stage of Section 245(1), if not

earlier under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C.

3. I have gone through the Vigilance Report. I find that the

petitioner must certainly be heard on her request for premature

termination. But I am of the opinion that the petitioner having already

appeared before the court below and having already been enlarged on

bail, the interests of justice will be best served by directing the Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Trichur to consider the petitioners prayer for

discharge expeditiously. The petitioner can claim discharge under

Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. straight away or she can claim discharge at the

stage of Section 245(1) Cr.P.C. after the pre-charge enquiry under

Crl.M.C.No. 3700 of 2008
3

Section 244 Cr.P.C. is conducted. If the petitioner stakes a claim for

premature termination under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. I expect the

learned C.J.M. to straight away consider the same and pass appropriate

orders. Till the Magistrate takes a decision to frame charges under

Section 246 Cr.P.C., the personal presence of the petitioner need not be

insisted and she shall be permitted to be represented through her

counsel. If such a claim for discharge under Section 245(2) is raised, I

expect the learned C.J.M. to consider the same expeditiously, at any

rate, within a period of six weeks from the date on which such claim is

filed.

4. With the above observations this Crl.M.C. is dismissed.

5. Hand over the order.

(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm