IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2009 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3735 of 2009() ----------------------------------- CC.303/2007 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM CRIME NO.1008 OF 2007 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.2 & 3: --------------------------------------------------- 1. JEROME GEORGE, S/O.GEORGE, INDRAPRASTHA, VIDYASALA NAGAR-20, ULIYAKOVIL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. TELMA JEROME, W/O.JEROME GEORGE, INDRAPRASTHA, VIDYASALA NAGAR-20, ULIYAKOVIL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.P.M.HABEEB RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. (CRIME NO.1008 OF 2007 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION.) 2. RESHMA, D/O.ANSO CABBET, CABBET DALE, PALLITHOTTAM, KOLLAM-6. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P.A. SALIM. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.NO. 3735 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 3rd December 2009 O R D E R Petitioners are accused 2 and 3 in C.C.303/2007 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam taken cognizance for the offence under Section 498 A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-I final report. First accused had earlier approached this court by filing Crl.M.C.1542/2008 to quash the cognizance taken. By order dated 29/9/2009 petition was disposed granting liberty to the first accused to seek an order of discharge from the Magistrate after raising all the contentions raised herein. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure contending that there is absolutely no material to prove any cruelty as contemplated under Section 498 A of Indian Penal Code as against the petitioners. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that Annexure-2 complaint only shows that after returning from Gulf second respondent Crmc 3735/09 2 de facto complainant was contacted over phone and then they had uttered words which according to second respondent are cruelty and as alleged in Annexure-1 final report there is no allegation that second respondent had gone to the house of petitioners and then she was treated with cruelty and therefore, the case is to be quashed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the statement of the witnesses prima facie shows that petitioners have also treated second respondent with cruelty. Exercising powers under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure it is not for this court to appreciate the evidence and find out whether version of second respondent in Annexure-2 complaint is to be accepted or not. It is a matter for the trial court to consider. Petitioners are at liberty to seek an order of discharge from the learned Magistrate, raising all the contentions herein. Petition is disposed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.