IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 19TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 533 of 2008() ------------------------ CC.211/2007 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI PETITIONER: 1. K.M.ABDUL NASER, AGED 37 YEARS, (NASEER IN COMPLAINT), S/O. UMAR, CHERUKATT HOUSE, VEETTIPADI, MUTTIPPALAM, ANAKKAYAM P.O., MALAPPURAM. 2. K.M.UMAR, AGED 65 YEARS, CHERUKATT HOUSE, VEETTIPADI, MUTTIPPALAM, ANAKKAYAM P.O., MALAPPURAM. 3. P.K.MYMOONATH, AGED 55 YEARS, (MYMOONA IN COMPLAINT), W/O. UMAR, CHERUKATT HOUSE, VEETTIPADI, MUTTIPPALAM, ANAKKAYAM P.O., MALAPPURAM. 4. K.M.SHAHIDA, AGED 33 YEARS, D/O. UMAR, CHERUKATT HOUSE, VEETTIPADI, MUTTIPPALAM, ANAKKAYAM P.O., MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ RESPONDENTS: 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY MANJERI POLICE STATION, CRIME NO.256 OF 2007 DT.8/5/07 MANJERI, MALAPPURAM, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. T.HAMZA, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANJERI POLICE STATION, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM. 3. SHANI, AGED 26 YEARS, D/O. KOYA, CHEKIDAPURAM VEEDU, MUNDUPARAMBA P.O., NEAR INDANE GAS GODOWN, MALAPPURAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR,J. ========================= CRL.M.C. NO. 533 OF 2008 ========================= Dated this the 8th day of February 2008 ORDER Petitioners, who are the brother-in-law, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law respectively of the de facto complainant and who are accused Nos.2 to 5 in Crime No.256/2007 of the Manjeri Police Station and now pending before the Chief Judicial Maistrate, Manjeri as C.C.221/2007, seek to quash the entire proceedings including the FIR, final report and the proceedings before the Magistrate. The aforesaid crime has been registered for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498A read with Section 34 IPC. 2. The contentions raised by the petitioners are that the alleged occurrence did not take place within the limits of the Manjeri Police Station, but it took place within the jurisdiction of the Malappuram Police Station but the police officer, who is a close relative of the de facto complaint was usurping the jurisdiction and taking over the investigation without having any authority and it was done at the instance of the de facto CRL.M.C.533/2008 2 complainant and that the allegations in the complaint do not prima facie amount to the alleged offences as against the petitioners. 3. It is too early to consider these contentions by this Court in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. without the aid of the prosecution records before this Court. The proper course for the petitioner would be to move the Magistrate for a discharge. Accordingly, if the petitioners file a petition for discharge in absentia through their counsel, the learned Magistrate shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders without insisting on the personal appearance of the petitioners. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE css/