IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 3993 of 2006()
1. MANI, W/O. KUTTAN, AGED 51 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. LAKSHMIKKUTTY, W/O. KUTTAN,
3. JAYAPRABHA, D/O. MANI, AGED 30 YEARS,
4. JAYAPRAKASH, S/O. KUTTAN, AGED 31 YEARS,
5. SINDHU, W/O. JAYAPRAKASH, AGED 29 YEARS,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY
... Respondent
2. MAYA, D/O. SUBADRA, AGED 24 YEARS,
For Petitioner :SRI.BIJU M.JOHN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :08/12/2006
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
CRL.M.C.NO. 3993 OF 2006
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of December, 2006
ORDER
The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution under
Secs.496, 120B and 294(b) read with Sec.34 of the IPC.
Cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate for the
offence committed on the basis of a final report submitted by
the police, after investigation. The petitioners were released
on bail by the learned Magistrate at the crime stage, it is
submitted. The petitioners have rushed to this Court without
and before appearing before the learned Magistrate with a
prayer that the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. may be
invoked to quash the proceedings against them.
2. What is the reason? The learned counsel for the
petitioners only submits that the allegations do not justify the
further proceedings against them. They may not be forced to
endure the trauma of criminal prosecution against them, it is
prayed.
3. Ordinarily and normally, I should expect the accused
persons against whom unjustified criminal proceedings are
CRL.M.C.NO. 3993 OF 2006 -: 2 :-
initiated to appear before the court concerned and claim
discharge. That is the ordinary and normal remedy available to a
person. Of course, the availability of such a remedy will not
inhibit or fetter the powers of this Court under Sec.482 of the
Cr.P.C. to quash a criminal prosecution invoking its
extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. But that can only be the
exception and not the daily routine. That cannot be a matter of
course. That cannot be the daily bread of this Court.
4. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I find no
exceptional reasons which would justify this Court invoking the
powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits
that the accused include old persons aged about 70 years. If
unnecessary insistence on personal appearance were made, that
would work out great prejudice and hardship to the petitioners,
it is submitted. I find no reason why, in the facts and
circumstances of this case, the learned Magistrate would insist
on personal presence of the accused persons on all dates of
posting. The petitioners can apply to the learned Magistrate for
exemption until they are heard on the question of charge and the
court decides that there is reason to frame charge against the
CRL.M.C.NO. 3993 OF 2006 -: 3 :-
petitioners.
6. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed; but with the
observation that the petitioners can be permitted by the learned
Magistrate on their applications to appear through counsel to
claim discharge. Only if it is found by the learned Magistrate
that the charges are liable to be framed, need the learned
Magistrate insist on the personal appearance of the accused, till
then the petitioners can be permitted to appear through counsel.
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I am
satisfied that the above observation/direction deserves to be
made/issued.
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/