IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2009 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1261 of 2006(C) -------------------------------------- CC.NO.387/2004 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PALAKKAD. .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- K.C.PADMINI, D/O.CHAMIYAR, THAMARKUNNATHU VEEDU, TENOOR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SMT.P.K.RADHIKA. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. S.S.MOHANDAS, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, RAKKATH VEETTIL, KINASSERY, PALAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. RAVEENDRA BABU, R1 BY ADVS. MR. N.SUKUMARAN, MR.S.SHYAM, MR.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1261 of 2006 - C ----------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.387/2004 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Palakkad. She is an inductee for the charges punishable under Sections 447, 448, 350 and 421 of the Indian Penal code. She has approached this court with the prayer to quash Annexure I complaint in C.C.No.387/2004 pending before the above said trail court. 2. The marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent was solemnized on 1.4.1990 and a girl child was born in their wedlock. Shortly thereafter, the relationship got strained and admittedly they are now living separately. The petitioner contends that after their separation she was compelled to file C.C.No.102/1994 under Section 498(A) of the IPC before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palakkad and she was also compelled to approach the Family Court, Palakkad with petitions for recovery of gold ornaments and also for maintenance. Admittedly, C.C.No.102/1994 filed against the first respondent Crl.M.C.No.1261 of 2006 - C 2 under Section 498(A) of IPC, ended in acquittal and thereafter it is submitted that the first respondent filed O.S.NO.144/2001 before the District Court, Palakkad for malicious prosecution. However, the same was also dismissed. The crux of the contention of the petitioner is that, Annexure I complaint has been filed by the first respondent before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palakkad solely to wreck vengeance in the circumstances mentioned above. It is contended that Annexure I complaint did not disclose any offence at all though she was charged under various sections of the IPC. The complaint of the first respondent as is evident from Annexure I complaint is that on 15.2.2004, the petitioner had trespassed into his house while he was away and broke open the almirah and took away Rs.1,55,000/- kept there which according to him was his pensionary benefits. He has preferred Annexure I complaint in respect of the said incident. As stated earlier, the petitioner seeks to quash Annexure I complaint only on the ground that the said complaint did not disclose any offence at all. Crl.M.C.No.1261 of 2006 - C 3 3. A scanning of Annexure I complaint would reveal the fact that the complaint of the 1st respondent is with respect to the alleged trespass and commission of theft of an amount of Rs.1,55,000/- belonging to him kept in the almirah in his house. A perusal of paragraph two of Annexure I complaint would reveal that the necessary ingredients to constitute the offences alleged against her have been set out in the complaint. On Annexure I complaint, the learned Magistrate has already taken cognizance and summons has been issued to the petitioner. Whether sufficient evidence is there to enter a conviction on the petitioner or not, based on Annexure I, is not a matter to be considered by the trial court at the time of taking cognizance. Once it is found that Annexure I complaint contains the necessary ingredients to constitute offences alleged against the petitioner, it follows that the Magistrate is perfectly justified in taking cognizance on Annexure I complaint. In these circumstances, I find no merit in the contention of the petitioner that Annexure I complaint did not disclose any offence at all and therefore it is to be quashed. Crl.M.C.No.1261 of 2006 - C 4 Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is dismissed. Needless to say that, if the stage for raising the plea of discharge has not crossed, the petitioner will be at liberty to make the plea of discharge and if it is so raised the trial court shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon before proceeding further with the case. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. bkn/-