IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4967 of 2008()
1. SANGEETHA BOSE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. S.I OF POLICE CENTRAL POLICE STATION
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.ALEXANDER PETER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :19/12/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 4967 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 19th day of December, 2008
O R D E R
The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under the
provisions of the Copyright Act. Cognizance has been taken on
the basis of the final report submitted after due investigation.
She has entered appearance through counsel before the learned
Magistrate.
2. The petitioner has come to this court now with a prayer
that the prosecution launched against her may be quashed
invoking the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section
482 Cr.P.C. According to her, the allegations against her are
groundless and she does not deserve to stand the trauma of a
protracted trial.
3. An indictee facing undeserved criminal prosecution
against her can certainly claim premature termination of such
proceedings under law. Normally and ordinarily such premature
termination can be claimed by invoking the ordinary provisions
of the Code. In an appropriate case where the interests of justice
Crl.M.C.No. 4967 of 2008
2
compellingly demand such course, this Court does of course have the
extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to
prematurely terminate such proceedings. But such invocation of the
extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction cannot be done as a matter of
course. Sufficient, satisfactory, compelling and exceptional reasons
must be shown to exist justifying the invocation of the powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. In all other cases parties need only be relegated
to claim premature termination by discharge. In a warrant offence in
which cognizance has been taken on the basis of the final report
submitted by the police, such premature termination can be claimed by
discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. This, I am satisfied, is a fit case
where the petitioner must be relegated to seek premature termination
by resort to the provisions of Section 239 Cr.P.C.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
unnecessary hardship and inconvenience will result if personal
presence of the petitioner, a woman, were to be insisted till the plea of
discharge is considered under Section 239 Cr.P.C. I am satisfied that
appropriate directions can be issued.
Crl.M.C.No. 4967 of 2008
3
5. This Crl.M.C. is dismissed without any fetter on the right of
the petitioner to claim discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. It is
further directed that until the plea of discharge is considered and a
decision taken, personal presence of the petitioner shall not be
insisted, if she is represented by a counsel.
6. Hand over the order.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm