IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3515 of 2006() -------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.368/06 OF FORT POLICE STATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1 TO 4: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. BENOY SASI, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. SASIDHARAN NAIR, SANKARA MANGALAM, KODUNGANOOR P.O., VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-13. 2. R.SASIDHARAN NAIR, S/O. LATE RAGHAVAN PILLAI, SANKARA MANGALAM, KODUNGANOOR P.O., VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-13. 3. S.KOMALAKUMARI AMMA, W/O. R.SASIDHARAN NAIR, SANKARA MANGALAM, KODUNGANOOR P.O., VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-13. 4. BIJOY SASIS, S/O. R.SASIDHARAN NAIR, SANKARA MANGALAM, KODUNGANOOR P.O., VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-13. BY ADV. MR.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. L.LIJI, D/O. BHASKARA PILLAI, 'JANANI', A.R.A. 105/TC 48/612, AMBALATHARA, POONTHURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-26. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. AMJAD ALI R2 BY ADV.MR.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2009 ALONG WITH CRMC NO. 1207 OF 2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.Nos.3515 of 2006 & 1207 of 2007 -------------------------- COMMON ORDER Petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.3515/2006 are the accused in Crime No.368/2006 of Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. Petitioners in Crl.M.C.No. 1207/2007 are the accused in Crime No.30/2007 of Vattiyoorkavu Police Station. First petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.3515/2006 is the second respondent in Crl.M.C.No.1207/2007. First petitioner in Crl.M.C. No.1207/2007 is the second respondent in Crl.M.C. No.3515/2006. Petitioners 2 to 4 in Crl.M.C. No.3515/2006 are the parents and brother of the first petitioner therein. Petitioners 2 to 4 in Crl.M.C.No.1207/2007 are the mother, sister and brother of the first petitioner therein. 2. Marriage of the first petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.3515/2006 with the first petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.1207/2007 was solemnized on 7.2.2005. First petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.1207/2007 filed CRMC 3515/06&1207/07 2 Annexure-A1 complaint before Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram alleging that petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.3515/2006 committed offences under Sections 498A, 420 and 406 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Learned Magistrate sent it for investigation under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure and on receipt of the complaint, Annexure-1(a) FIR in Crime No.368/2006 was registered by Fort police. Crl.M.C. No.3515/2006 is filed by the accused therein to quash the complaint and the FIR contending that it is only an abuse of process of the court and maliciously instituted with malafides by the second respondent and therefore, it is to be quashed. First petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.3515/2006 filed Annexure-1 complaint before Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Nedumangad alleging that petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.1207/2007 committed offences under Sections 420, 418, 406, 120(b), 108 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. CRMC 3515/06&1207/07 3 Learned Magistrate sent it for investigation under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure and on receipt of the complaint, Annexure-II FIR in Crime No.30/2007 was registered for the said offences. Accused therein filed Crl.M.C.No.1207/2007 to quash the complaint as well as the FIR. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners and respective second respondent were heard. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.3515/2006, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 335), argued that though the inherent power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure is to be exercised only sparingly, it is to be exercised to prevent abuse of process of the court or to secure the ends of justice and where, a criminal proceedings is manifestly attended with malafides and proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive CRMC 3515/06&1207/07 4 for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge, it is to be quashed. It is argued that Annexure-1 complaint sent to the police for investigation by Judicial First Class Magistrate- II, Thiruvananthapuram is manifestly attended with malafides. It is also pointed out that raising the same allegations, complaints were preferred before Women's Commission, before Family Court and also before Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and it establishes that it is the result of malicious intention and it is, therefore, to be quashed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.1207/2007 also contended that complaint filed by the husband against the wife and her relatives is without any bona fides and with ulterior motive and therefore, the case is to be quashed. CRMC 3515/06&1207/07 5 6. If the allegations in the complaints filed by respective parties make out ingredients of the offences, it is not for this Court to exercise the inherent jurisdiction to quash the complaint and thwart the investigation. On hearing the learned counsel on both sides and going through the complaints filed by the respective parties, it cannot be said that ingredients of the offences is not made out. The question whether the allegations could be substantiated cannot be decided at this stage, as it is a matter for investigation. If, after investigation, a final report is submitted alleging commission of offence against the petitioners, they are at liberty to challenge the same at the appropriate forum. With that liberty, petitions are dismissed. 23rd July, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv