IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4607 of 2008()
1. GOPINATHAN, S/O.VELU, AGED 73 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. SUNIL KUMAR, MOOLAYI PALLY,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.RAJENDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :28/11/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
Crl.M.C.No.4607 of 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of November 2008
O R D E R
The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for
offences punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. Investigation is
complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has
been taken. But the petitioner, who is said to be a 73 year old
person, sick and infirm, has not entered appearance so far. The
allegations are false. The charge is groundless. Hence powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to quash the
proceedings against him, submits the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
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
be claimed in accordance with the ordinary provisions of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. Of course, this court, in an
exceptional case, if sufficient, satisfactory and compelling
reasons are shown to exist, does have the reservoir of powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C to prematurely terminate the
proceedings. I am not satisfied that this is a fit case where such
extraordinary inherent jurisdiction can or ought to be invoked. I
Crl.M.C.No.4607/08 2
am satisfied that the petitioner must be relegated to claim
premature termination by discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is a permanent resident of Kollam District. He is
aged 73 years. He is sick and infirm. The matter is pending
before the court at Hosdurg, at the other extreme of the State.
In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner
prays that the petitioner may be exempted from personal
appearance until a decision is taken on the question of
discharge. 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 under Section 239/240 Cr.P.C.
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.
6. With the above observations, this Crl.M.C is
dismissed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge
Crl.M.C.No.4607/08 3
Crl.M.C.No.4607/08 4
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.C.No. of 2008
ORDER
09/07/2008