IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 26TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3493 of 2008() ------------------------- CMP.1935/2008 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI CRIME NO.200/08 OF THE AREEKODE POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. .................... PETITIONER: ------------ V.RAJAN, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.SHANMUGHAM, VASANTHA SADANAM, KANNIMALA VEEDU, ERUMELI, DIST. KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. K.K.SAUDAMINI, KAVUMPADIYIL HOUSE, PUKKALATHUR, PULPATTA P.O., MANCHERRY, DIST. MALAPPURAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AREEKODU POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY P.P. SRI. S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 3493 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of September, 2008 ORDER The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer that the FIR registered against him alleging commission of the offences punishable under Secs.498A, 406 and 323 IPC may be quashed. The said FIR is registered on the basis of a complaint filed by the 1st respondent – his wife, before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri, and forwarded to the police under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. A crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner, it is submitted in the course of discussions at the Bar, had already approached the bail Bench of this Court for anticipatory bail and the said prayer for anticipatory bail has been turned down. The petitioner has, in these circumstances, come to this Court for quashing of the Crl.M.C. No. 3493 of 2008 -: 2 :- FIR. 2. What is the reason? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the allegations raised are totally false. It is next contended that the private complaint now filed is belated as the complaint is filed long after the specific incidents referred to in the complaint took place. Thirdly, it is contended that the private complaint has been filed as a counter blast to a petition for divorce filed by the petitioner. Fourthly and finally, it is contended that such criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner would work out great prejudice, hardship and loss to the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner is residing with his child begotten in an earlier marriage of his, the said wife having expired due to cancer. 3. It is true that this Court has jurisdictional competence under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction and quash an FIR registered against a person. But such powers are not to be invoked as a matter of course. Satisfactory, compelling and exceptional reasons must be shown to exist to justify the invocation of such powers. 4. The mere fact that, according to the petitioner, the allegations are false cannot certainly lead to quashing of the FIR. Whether the allegations are true or false will have Crl.M.C. No. 3493 of 2008 -: 3 :- to be ascertained by investigation to be conducted by the Investigating Officer. I shall not lightly assume that proper investigation shall not be conducted; nor shall I assume that the petitioner shall be subjected to unnecessary undeserved and needless vexation merely because the FIR has been registered. The Investigating Officer must be alertly conscious of the possibility of vexatious allegations being raised by the wife in such complaint under Sec.498A IPC and must carefully exercise his jurisdiction to avoid needless hardship, inconvenience and vexation to the accused in such crimes. At any rate, at the moment and with the available inputs, exercising the jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. I find no reason to assume that the allegations are so totally and grossly false as to justify the invocation of the jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. 5. The fact that the wife did not immediately rush to the Police Station or the Magistrate with a complaint in the wake of matrimonial cruelty inflicted on her would be too myopic a reason to discard her complaint at the threshold. It is reasonable to assume that an Indian wife would go to the Magistrate or the police with a complaint of matrimonial cruelty only after all steps to suffer in silence and to endure the trauma became unbearable and impossible. In these Crl.M.C. No. 3493 of 2008 -: 4 :- circumstances, the mere that fact that there was some delay in the wife approaching the Magistrate or the police cannot definitely be reckoned as a valid reason to invoke the jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. 6. So is the contention regarding the complaint being filed only after the petition of divorce was filed by the husband. The wife could certainly have waited in patience till the husband made the first move and dragged her to the court to think that nothing is lost in airing the genuine grievance which she has against the husband. I make it clear that I do not intend to hazard any opinion at this early stage about the acceptability of the allegations. I am looking at the above question only to find out whether the FIR deserves to be quashed. I am not persuaded to agree that there are any reasons justifying or warranting the invocation of the jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR registered against the petitioner. 7. The petitioner's attempt to secure anticipatory bail having failed, the option for the petitioner is now to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate. I have no reason to assume that his application for regular bail will not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. Sufficient general Crl.M.C. No. 3493 of 2008 -: 5 :- directions on this aspect have already been issued in the decision reported in Alice George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339). Every court must comply with the same. 8. With the above observations, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge