IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2011 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 761 of 2011() ----------------------- CRIME NO. 63/2011 OF VARAPPUZHA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT .................... PETITIONERS :- ACCUSED : ---------------------------------------- 1. ALEX THEOPHINE, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. FRANCIS, ARAKKAL HOUSE, THIRUMOOPAM, VARAPPUZHA. 2. ALBY, S/O. FRANCIS, AGED 32, DO- A2 3. ANIE FRANCIS, W/O. FRANCIS, AGED 55, DO- A3 BY ADV. SMT. LALY VINCENT RESPONDENTS :- COMPLAINANT : -------------------------------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARAPUZHA POLICE STATION, VARAPUZHA. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.761 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 10th day of March, 2011 ORDER Petitioners are accused in Crime No.63 of 2011 of Varapuzha Police Station for offences punishable under Secs.323, 324, 406, 506(ii) and 498A r/w Sec.34 of the Penal Code. That case was registered on the complaint preferred by one Jancy, wife of first petitioner before the learned Magistrate and which was forwarded to the police for investigation under sec.156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioners seek to quash proceedings against them on the ground that allegations are false. Learned counsel submitted that the whole incident arose from mutual distrust between first petitioner and his wife and following that there was some altercation between them on 16.10.2010 consequent to which the wife withdrew from the company of first petitioner and later she preferred the complaint. Learned counsel also submitted that when the first petitioner moved this Court for anticipatory bail it was represented by the learned Public Prosecutor that there was no intention to arrest first petitioner. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. Crl.M.C.No.761 of 2011 -: 2 :- 2. It is seen from Annexure-D, FIR that there is an allegation that demanding more dowry petitioners subjected the de facto complainant to mental and physical cruelty. On 16.10.2010 the first petitioner is said to have assaulted the de facto complainant while the second petitioner is alleged to have threatened to stab her with knife. The third petitioner is said to have pushed her out of the house and closed the door. There is a further allegation that her ornaments were misappropriated and she was criminally intimidated. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the matter is under investigation. 3. Having regard to the allegations made in the complaint I am not inclined to think that this is a case where this Court should quash Annexure-D, FIR. The investigation is proceeding. It is for the investigating officer to find initially whether allegations against petitioners or any of them are made out. I do not find reason to interfere. 4. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the submission made by learned Public Prosecutor when the application for anticipatory bail was moved that there is no intention to arrest the first petitioner, he did not so far move the trial court for regular bail and he is under threat of arrest. I make Crl.M.C.No.761 of 2011 -: 3 :- it clear that it is open to the petitioner to move the trial court and seek regular bail and if any such application is preferred learned Magistrate shall pass appropriate orders having regard to the nature of allegations made. Resultantly without prejudice to the right if any of petitioners to challenge the final report this petition is closed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-