IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 1877 of 2008()
1. RAJAN VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE, AGED 58,
... Petitioner
2. NIRMALA RAJAN, W/O.RAJAN VARGHESE,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. K.V.THOMAS, S/O.VARGHESE, AGED
For Petitioner :SRI.TOM K.THOMAS
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :23/05/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-----------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 1877 OF 2008
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2008
O R D E R
The petitioners are accused 1 and 2 and they along with the
3rd accused face indictment for offences punishable inter alia
under Sections 120(B), 465 and 468 IPC. The allegation against
the accused persons is that they had forged the signature of the
de facto complainant in a trust deed and have used the same as
genuine. A crime was registered, investigation was conducted
and final report has been filed. Cognizance has been taken by the
learned Magistrate. Petitioners have also appeared before the
learned Magistrate. They have been enlarged on bail also. At this
stage the petitioners have come to this Court with a prayer that
powers under Section 482 may invoked to quash the proceedings
against them.
2. What is the reason? The learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. The
materials relied on by the Investigator even if accepted in toto can
only show that the petitioners were also signatories to the
allegedly forged document along with some others. The counsel
Crl.M.C. No. 1877 OF 2008
2
argues that there is nothing to show that it was the petitioners who
forged the signature of the de facto complainant in the document
in question. Premature termination of proceedings by invoking the
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C is thus prayed.
3. I must alertly remind myself about the nature, quality and
contours of my jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. An accused
person who feels that he is unjustly charge sheeted by the police
is entitled under the Code of Criminal Procedure to claim
premature termination of proceedings. Ordinarily and normally
such an indictee must resort to the procedure available under the
Code to claim such premature termination of proceedings. Not
that, this Court does not have jurisdictional competence in an
appropriate case to invoke powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C and
bring to premature termination of such proceedings; be sufficient
and compelling reasons must be shown to exist to justify
invocation of such extraordinary inherent jurisdiction.
4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am not
persuaded to think that this is a fit case where such powers can or
ought to be invoked. The petitioners, who have already been
Crl.M.C. No. 1877 OF 2008
3
arrested and enlarged on bail by the learned Magistrate, must be
directed to approach the learned Magistrate and claim premature
termination of proceedings by discharge under Section 239
Cr.P.C. At the stage under Section 239/240 Cr.P.C, the learned
Magistrate must consider the claim of the petitioners for discharge
and take appropriate decision in the matter on merits.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if
insistence were made on the personal appearance of the
petitioners who have already been enlarged on bail on all posting
dates, serious hardship ad prejudice shall be caused to the
petitioners. I find no reason why such ritualistic personal
appearance of the petitioners should be insisted by any court.
Petitioners can claim and the learned Magistrate allow such
request to be represented by their counsel, till a decision is taken
on the question of charge/discharge under Section 239/240.
6. In the above circumstances, the Crl.M.C is dismissed with
the above observation.
R. BASANT, JUDGE
ttb
Crl.M.C. No. 1877 OF 2008
4
Crl.M.C. No. 1877 OF 2008
5
Crl.M.C. No. 1877 OF 2008
6