IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2011 / 29TH ASWINA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3297 of 2011() ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. PINKY MARGERATE VARGHESE, D/O.CHIROTHA VARGHESE, CHETTUPUZHA DESOM OLARIKKARA VILLAGE, TRICHUR. 2. TUTTU SAN JOSE, S/O.CHIROTHA VARGHESE RESIIDNG DO...DO... 3. VARGHESE, S/O.CHIROTHA JOSEPH RESIDING DO... BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ANIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE TRICHUR WEST POLICE STATION. 2. STATE RE.P BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 3. RIJU JACOB, S/O.KODIYAN JACOB KANNIKKARA DESOM, THAZHEKKAD VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, TRICHUR. BY ADV.SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 3297 of 2011() APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : ANNEXURE-1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.5.7.2011 ANNEXURE-2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ami/ N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------- Cr.M.C.No.3297 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of October, 2011. O R D E R The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.998/11 of Thrissur West Police station. The complaint was filed by the 3rd respondent herein against the petitioner alleging commission of offence under Sections 341, 294(b), 506(1) of IPC and also under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. The 3rd respondent (complainant) is the husband of the petitioner. It is stated that, litigations are pending between the parties before the Family court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, a reading of the complaint itself would make it clear that so many incidents alleged to have taken place are clubbed together and the complaint was filed only to cause hardship to the wife, who is the petitioner before the Family court. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the allegations contained in the complaint do not attract 2 Cr.M.C.No.3297 of 2011 offences under Sections 294(b), 506 or 341. It is also stated that wild allegations are made in the complaint with oblique motive only to see that a crime is registered and the petitioner is harassed. 3. It is seen that when the complaint was filed, it was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. It is true that simply because some false allegations are made in the complaint, the investigation should not be proceeded on a pre-conceived notion that, the allegations in the complaint are true. 4. Learned counsel submits that, so many incidents have been falsely narrated in the complaint only to make it appear that the allegations are true. However, it is for the Investigating Officer to find out the correctness/truthfulness of the allegations made in the complaint. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that, based on such false complaint, the petitioner who is a woman is being harassed by asking her to go to the police station every now and then. That has to be taken serious note of. In these circumstances, 3 Cr.M.C.No.3297 of 2011 the following directions are issued :- The District Police Chief of Thrissur District, will see that the investigation is conducted by the Officer properly. To avoid unnecessary allegation, it is proper that the investigation is handed over to the C.I. The Investigating Officer should ensure that the petitioner is not unnecessarily harassed. If the charge sheet has already been filed, the petitioner will be at liberty to attack the charge sheet on any of the grounds that may be available to her. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN Judge. ami/