IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/30TH MAGHA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 903 of 2013 AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP 963/2012 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, KANNUR CRIME NO. 168/2012 OF KANNAPURAM POLICE STATION , KANNUR PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: MANOJ T., AGED 3[CASE NUMBER] YEARS S/O. BALAKRISHNA NAMBIAR, AGED 3[CASE NUMBER] YEARS, PAYYADAKKATH HOUSE, VALIYAPARAMBA, KODAKKADU P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD SRI.SAJU J PANICKER RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: 1. STATE OF KERALA, (SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANNAPURAM POLICE STATION, CRIME NO. 168/2012,) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SONA M.C, AGED 29 YEARS, D/O. K.P. GOPALAN, K.P. HOUSE, EDAKKEPURAM, CHERUKUNNU P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-6[CASE NUMBER]0014. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GITHESH. R. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PJ Crl.MC.No. 903 of 2013 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES A1: COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, KANNUR (SC 963/12) [SECTION]: COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.168/2012 OF KANNAPURAM POLICE STATION [SECTION]: COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 29/3/2012 A4: THE MEMO OF EVIDENCE FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ANNEXURE [SECTION] CHARGE SHEET A5: COPY OF THE STATEMENTS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT RECORDED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND FILED ALONG WITH THE CHARGE SHEET A6: COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE TWIN SISTER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT A[CASE NUMBER]: COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE BROTHER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT A8: COPY OF THE STASTEMENTS OF OTHER WITNESSES IN THE CHARGE SHEET A9: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25/4/11 IN [CASE NUMBER] OF THE FAMILY COURT. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE NIL. / TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ [ENTITY], J. [CASE NUMBER] Dated this the 19th day of February, 2014 ORDER
This petition is filed U/[SECTION] [ACT] to quash Annexure- [SECTION] final report and all further criminal proceedings in [CASE NUMBER] of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur. The above case was registered by the Kannapuram Police on the basis of a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur, which was sent over to the Kannapuram Police for investigation U/[SECTION] [ACT] After investigation, they filed a final report before Court. The allegation is that on 1[CASE NUMBER].6.200[CASE NUMBER] the petitioner married the 2nd respondent as per customary rites and thereafter they lived together as husband and wife till 15.12.200[CASE NUMBER]. While residing together, the petitioner illtreated the 2nd respondent demanding dowry both physically and mentally. After that, on 15.12.200[CASE NUMBER], she was ousted from the matrimonial house. In the circumstances, she filed Annexure-A1 complaint before Court. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner approached this Court to quash the proceedings by invoking the inherent jurisdiction.
2. Heard both sides. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the incident was occurred between 1[CASE NUMBER].6.200[CASE NUMBER] and 15.12.200[CASE NUMBER]. Annexure-A1 complaint was preferred on 1.3.2012 and Annexure-[SECTION] is the FIR registered on 2.3.2012 by the Kannapuram Police after receiving Annexure-A1 complaint from JFCM-I, Kannur. After detailed investigation, a final report was filed only on 28.3.2012. Thereafter, the Court took cognizance of the offence. According to the 2nd respondent, her marriage was solemnized on 1[CASE NUMBER].6.200[CASE NUMBER] and thereafter both of them lived together as husband and wife till 15.12.200[CASE NUMBER]. The incident was occurred during this period. The last incident was on 15.12.200[CASE NUMBER], on which date, the petitioner ousted her from matrimonial house. The complaint was filed after the expiry of the period of limitation provided U/[SECTION] [ACT] The trial Court took cognizance of the offence without considering the aforesaid provision. Prima facie no materials are produced before the trial court to show that any matrimonial offence was committed by the petitioner against the 2nd respondent.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor admitted that no petition for condoning the delay was filed along with the complaint. When the final report was filed before the trial court, it is the responsibility of the learned Magistrate to consider the aforesaid period of limitation provided U/[SECTION] [ACT] Hence, he prays to remit the matter to the trial court.
4. The inherent jurisdiction to interfere in criminal proceedings is mentioned U/[SECTION] [ACT] for three grounds. Inherent jurisdiction can be invoked to make such orders necessary to "give effect to any order" under this code or to prevent "abuse of the process" of any court or to secure "the ends of justice". While considering the facts mentioned in the petition, there is a duty from the side of Court to verify the materials placed before it to invoke the inherent jurisdiction. The Apex Court in [PRECEDENT], held as follows: [[PRECEDENT] "where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, the proceedings are liable to be quashed".
5. The facts of the case show that the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on 12.9.2012 and issued summons to the petitioner and on the basis of that summons, the petitioner appeared before the trial Court. But, the learned Magistrate has not considered the bar to take cognizance of the offence, after the expiry of the limitation period mentioned U/[SECTION] [ACT] [SECTION] [ACT] reads as follows:
"468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation.- (1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no court, shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation. (2) The period of limitation shall be-
(a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only;
(b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year;
(c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. (3). For the purpose of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment."
The offence U/[SECTION] shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. The language of [SECTION] makes it imperative that the limitation provided for taking cognizance in [SECTION] is in respect of offence charged. Therefore, before taking cognizance of the offence, the learned Magistrate has responsibility to ascertain the specific period. The Apex Court in Venkappa Gurappa Hosur v. Kasawwa [(199[CASE NUMBER]) 4 SC 21[CASE NUMBER]] held that once the limitation has begun to run, it runs its full course. I have verified Annexure-A1 complaint. No reasons are stated by the defacto complainant in the trial court to condone the delay. [SECTION] [ACT] says that even after the expiry of the period of limitation, the Court can take cognizance of the offence, if it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or it is necessary to do so in the interests of justice. Such request was also not made in the trial court. The petitioner contended that his marriage with the 2nd respondent was divorced on 25.4.2011 as per Annexure-A9 judgment of the Family Court, Kasaragod. If that be the position, further trial of the case in J.F.C.M-I, Kannur amounts to a mere abuse of process of the Court. The Apex Court in [PRECEDENT] held that: "When the High Court on examination of the record finds that there is grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of the Courts or the required statutory procedure has not been complied with or there is failure of justice or order passed or sentence imposed by the Magistrate requires correction, it is but the duty of the High Court to have it corrected at the inception lest grave miscarriage of justice would ensue. It is therefore, to meet the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process that the High Court is preserved with inherent power and would be justified, under such circumstances, to exercise the inherent power and in an appropriate case."
6. Accepting the above legal principle, I am of the view that this a fit case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction U/[SECTION] [ACT] Accordingly, [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] are liable to be quashed and I do so.
Crl.M.C. is allowed as above.
[ENTITY], JUDGE.