IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 527 of 2009()
1. P.M.MANOJ, S/O.MADHAVAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DEEPADARSHINI.G. ,W/O. LIJO ZACHARIA,
... Respondent
2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :04/02/2009
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 527 of 2009
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of February, 2009
ORDER
The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under
Sec.420 IPC. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final
report submitted by the police after due investigation in a
crime. That crime, in turn, was registered on the basis of a
complaint filed before the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Kannur, and forwarded to the local Police Station. The
petitioner has not been arrested at the crime stage or
thereafter. On the final report, cognizance has been taken.
Calendar Case has been registered. Reckoning the petitioner
as an absconding accused, coercive processes have been
issued against the petitioner by the learned Magistrate . Such
processes are chasing the petitioner now. The petitioner
apprehends imminent arrest in execution of such processes.
Crl.M.C. No. 527 of 2009 -: 2 :-
2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent.
Criminal adjudicatory process has been initiated against the
petitioner unjustifiably. The allegations against the petitioner
are groundless. In these circumstances, this prosecution may
be quashed. The petitioner may not be compelled to endure the
trauma of execution of the coercive processes against him and of
standing trial before the learned Magistrate, submits counsel.
3. I am satisfied that the contention of the petitioner that
the allegations against him are groundless deserves to be
considered. I am further satisfied that an indictee facing an
unjustified and undeserved criminal prosecution against him is
entitled to premature termination of proceedings without
obliging him to endure the trauma of such prosecution. Such
premature termination of proceedings can be claimed at the
threshold in a criminal prosecution in accordance with the
ordinary and normal provisions of Code. Where the offence
alleged is a warrant offence and cognizance has been taken on
the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due
investigation, such premature termination can be claimed under
Sec.239 Cr.P.C. Of course, in an appropriate case whether the
interests of justice compellingly demand such course, this Court
has the reservoir of powers under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. to bring to
Crl.M.C. No. 527 of 2009 -: 3 :-
premature termination such prosecution. But invocation of the
powers under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. cannot be a matter of course.
Satisfactory, sufficient, compelling and exceptional reasons must
be shown to exist to justify the invocation of such extraordinary
inherent jurisdiction.
4. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am
satisfied that the petitioner can be relegated to claim premature
termination by discharge under Sec.239 Cr.P.C. and it is not
necessary for this Court to invoke the extraordinary inherent
jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C.
5. I find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for
the petitioner that great prejudice, hardship and inconvenience
would result if the personal presence of the petitioner were to be
insisted on all dates of posting to enable him to stake his claim
for premature termination of prosecution by discharge. I am
satisfied, in these circumstances, that appropriate directions can
be issued.
6. In the result:
(a) This Crl.M.C. is dismissed.
(b) But it is observed that the coercive processes issued
against the petitioner shall not be executed till 24/2/2009. On or
before that date the petitioner shall appear before the learned
Crl.M.C. No. 527 of 2009 -: 4 :-
Magistrate through counsel and claim exemption from personal
appearance.
(c) The learned Magistrate shall consider the petitioner’s
plea for discharge under Sec.239 Cr.P.C. expeditiously. If the
petitioner is represented by a counsel, the learned Magistrate
shall not insist on the personal presence of the petitioner until
and unless the learned Magistrate comes to a conclusion that
charges are liable to be framed under Sec.240 Cr.P.C. Until
then, the petitioner shall be permitted to be represented by
counsel.
7. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for
the petitioner.
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
Crl.M.C. No. 527 of 2009 -: 5 :-