IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3678 of 2008()
1. PADMANABANUNNI
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :30/09/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
Crl.M.C.No.3678 of 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of September 2008
O R D E R
The petitioner is the first accused and he faces indictment
in a prosecution for offences punishable inter alia under Sections
471 and 408 read with 34 I.P.C. Altogether three accused
persons were arrayed. The petitioner is the Secretary of a Co-
operative Society and the second accused is the President of the
Society. The 3rd accused, who is reported to have expired, was a
member of the Director Board of the Society. The crux of the
allegations as can be identified from the F.I.R is that bogus loan
applications in the name of fictitious non-existent persons were
filed and such applications were made use of to siphon out the
funds of the society. This allegedly was committed with the
collusion and active co-operation of the accused persons who did
not discharge their duties in respect to such loan application.
Investigation is now complete. Final report has already been
filed. Cognizance has been taken. The petitioner has already
appeared before the court below and has been enlarged on bail,
it is submitted.
Crl.M.C.No.3678/08 2
2. The final report has not been produced before this
court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
final report is liable to be quashed invoking the jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. What is the reason? The learned
counsel for the petitioner advances various contentions. It is
submitted that the F.I.R was registered on 05/04/1997. The
alleged incident took place in 1995. The petitioner is a person of
advanced age. The petitioner is not having the responsibility to
identify the loan applicants. He proceeds on the identification
made by the President of the Society and the resolutions of the
Board of Directors. In these circumstances, the petitioner does
not deserve to endure the trauma of a criminal prosecution, it is
submitted.
3. I have considered the submissions. I shall carefully
avoid any detailed discussion on merits about the acceptability of
the allegations or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it
to say that, having considered all the relevant inputs, I am not
persuaded to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Crl.M.C.No.3678/08 3
4. Premature termination of an undeserved criminal
prosecution can certainly be claimed by an indictee. Such claim
must normally be made under the ordinary provisions of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. In a prosecution in which
cognizance has been taken of a warrant offence on the basis of a
final report submitted by the police, such premature termination
can be claimed at the stage of Section 239 Cr.P.C by discharge.
Ordinarily and normally indictees must be relegated to claim
premature termination by resorting to such ordinary provisions
of the court. In an exceptional case where the interests of justice
compellingly so demand, this court does, of course, have the
reservoir of sweeping powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to bring
to premature termination such a prosecution. But sufficient,
satisfactory and compelling reasons must be shown to exist for
this court to deviate from the normal procedure and to entertain
such a request for premature termination by invocation of the
extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. I do not find any such
reasons in this case.
5. It will be for the petitioner to claim premature
termination of the proceedings by discharge under Section 239
Crl.M.C.No.3678/08 4
Cr.P.C, if he feels that he has a justifiable ground to so claim
such termination. The learned counsel for the petitioner
contends that the petitioner wants to raise the question of the
bar of limitation also. That question can also be raised at the
stage of Section 239 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the
petitioner further submits that the petitioner is aged 70 years
and if his personal presence were to be insisted on all dates of
posting, that will work out great prejudice and hardship to the
petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is already on bail.
6. The petitioner can apply for exemption and advance
the plea for discharge through his counsel. Only if the learned
Magistrate finds that charges are liable to be framed u/s 240
Cr.P.C, need the learned Magistrate insist on the personal
appearance of the petitioner, in the absence of other
compelling reasons.
7. With the above observations, this Crl.M.C is
dismissed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
Crl.M.C.No.3678/08 5
Crl.M.C.No.3678/08 6
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.C.No. of 2008
ORDER
09/07/2008