High Court rejected petition to quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C, directing accused to seek discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Court permitted appearance through counsel instead of personally until charges are framed.
Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C dismissed as petitioner directed to seek discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT
MONDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 24TH BHADRA 1930
Crl.MC.No. 467 of 2008()
-----------------------CC.477/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, DEVICOLAM
PETITIONER: ACCUSED NO.3
SARA ISSAC, AGED 44 YEARS, W/O.DR.ISSAC VARGHESE, 2B, LINK HEIGHTS, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-36.
BY ADV. SRI.JACOB MATHEW MANALIL SMT.P.PRIYA SRI.P.J.SABASTIN
RESPONDENTS: DEFACTO COMPLAINANT
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
R.BASANT, J
Crl.M.C. No.467 of 2008
Dated this the 15th day of September, 2008
ORDER
Petitioner is the 3rd accused and she along with 3 others faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 420 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations is that all the 4 accused persons in furtherance of their common intention with fraudulent purpose, deceived the defacto complainant to accept a cheque without any intention of getting the same honoured. Cognizance was taken on the basis of a final report filed after due investigation by the Investigating Officer. Crime in turn was registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the defacto complainant and referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The petitioner has already entered appearance and has been enlarged on bail. She, a woman, now has come to this Court with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against her.
Crl.M.C. No.467 of 2008 2
final report filed by the police, such premature termination can be claimed at the stage of Section 239/240 Cr.P.C. If the allegations are groundless, the learned Magistrate should not frame a charge against the indictee and must discharge such indictee.
Crl.M.C. No.467 of 2008 3
trauma if her personal appearance were to be insisted by the learned Magistrate. I am satisfied that appropriate direction can be issued/provided to save the petitioner from such apprehended undeserved trauma. The petitioner can appear through counsel and raise the plea of discharge. The petitioner's personal presence shall not be insisted by the learned Magistrate until the plea of discharge is considered on merits and appropriate decision taken. Until then, she shall be permitted to be represented by her counsel. Only if the learned Magistrate finds that charges are liable to be framed under Section 240 Cr.P.C, can and need the petitioner appear in person before the learned Magistrate.
dismissed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioner can invoke inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash criminal proceedings instead of seeking discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C
Whether petitioner is exempted from personal appearance before the Magistrate while raising plea for discharge
Whether guidelines were issued regarding personal appearance for accused woman accused of non-cognizable offence
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Sara Issac
State of Kerala
Praveen Xavier
R.Basant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
