IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 2904 of 2007()
1. MURALEEDHARAN, S/O MADHAVAPANICKER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. JAYACHANDRA BABU @ J.C.BABU,
For Petitioner :SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :18/09/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.2904 of 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of September, 2007
O R D E R
The petitioner is the 1st accused in a prosecution for the offence
punishable under Section 420 r/w 34 I.P.C. Cognizance has been
taken on the basis of a final report submitted in 2004 and the case had
been registered as C.C.No.340 of 2004 before the Judicial Magistrate
of the First Class-II, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner, in 2007,
has come before this Court with a prayer that cognizance taken is bad
and may be quashed.
2. Why is the petitioner coming before this Court in 2007 in
respect of a matter, cognizance in which has been taken in 2004 ? No
satisfactory reasons are shown. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner has already entered appearance, but
charges have not been framed yet.
3. I have perused the records. I am of the opinion that the
petitioner must raise his plea for discharge under Section 239/240
Cr.P.C before the learned Magistrate as it is submitted that charges
have not so far been framed. Needless to say that the learned
Magistrate must consider the petitioner’s plea for discharge at the
stage of Section 239/240 Cr.P.C.
Crl.M.C.No.2904 of 2007 2
4. Premature termination of proceedings can be claimed as
per the Code at the stage of Section 239/240 Cr.P.C. In every case
where such premature termination is possible, it is not necessary for
this Court to invoke its extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. No reasons are shown to exist to invoke the
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C in favour of the petitioner, who has
not admittedly claimed discharge so far before the court below.
5. In the result, this Crl.M.C is dismissed but with the specific
observation that if charges have not already been framed, it shall be
open to the petitioner to stake his claim for discharge under Section
239/240 Cr.P.C.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-
Crl.M.C.No.2904 of 2007 3