IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 27TH BHADRA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3367 of 2006 ---------------------------- CC.159/2004 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 2 & 3: ------------------------------------- 1. MYTHEEN BEEVI, USHUS, CHACKA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. M.M. SHAJI, USHUS, CHACKA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENT(S): STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, ERNAKULAM. (ADDL.SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALIATHURA POLICE STATION.) 2. HAMEEDA BEEVI, D/O. O.ABDUL KHADER, T.C.34/61, SHAMNA MANZIL, RAJEEV NAGAR ROAD, BEACH P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.M.M.HUSAIN FOR R2 SRI.A.ABSALKHAN FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 3367 of 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of September, 2009. ORDER Petitioners are being prosecuted along with another for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code at the instance of respondent No.2 herein who is the de facto complainant. Petitioners are the mother-in-law and brother-in- law respectively of respondent No.2 . 2. The case of the de facto complainant in Annexure I complaint filed before the court below is that accused No.1 (son of petitioner No.1) had married her in August 1993 and that a month after the marriage, her husband left the country for resuming his duties in Dubai. For about three months, the de facto complainant resided with the petitioners. During that period, the two accused took away her ornaments, cash, household articles etc. which were given to her as gift by her parents. She was sent to her parental home after about three months of stay in the matrimonial home. Thereafter on another occasion accused No.2 took her out and managed to get her 'thali' from her. The de facto complainant alleged that after her husband left for Dubai in 1993, he had never bothered to pay any maintenance to her. It was in the above circumstances that she filed the complaint alleging commission of various offences including the offences under sections 420, 498(A) etc. The complaint was forwarded by the Police to the Crl.MC.3367/06 : 2 : learned Magistrate under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Charge sheet was filed by the Police after investigation against the three accused including the petitioners for the offence punishable under section 498A read with section 34 IPC. 3. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation, even assuming there is any substance in any of the allegations made in the complaint. The complaint was filed before the court on June 18, 2001, 8 years after the marriage. As mentioned earlier, the case of the complainant was that she was sent to her parental home three months after the marriage. In the meanwhile, the two accused had allegedly taken away cash to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, a Rado watch, some household articles etc. Her thali was also forcibly taken away from her. All these incidents took place within a span of three months from the date of marriage. It may be noticed that the specific case of the complainant is that she had all along been residing in her parental home after she was sent away by her mother-in-law and brother-in-law three months after the marriage. 4. Having carefully perused the averments in the complaint, I am satisfied that the proceedings pending against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. I do so. Crl.M.C is allowed. A.K. Basheer Judge. an.