IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3844 of 2005() ------------------------- CC.1241/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, HOSDURG .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED. ----------------------- ZEENATH, D/O.ERAMULLAN, ZEENATH MANZIL, BALLA KADAPPURAM, BALLA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE. -------------------------------------------------- 1. ANEESA, W/O.MUHAMMED KUNHI, AKBAR VILLAGE, PALLA KADAPPURAM, BALLA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKKEN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.14051/05 IN CRL.M.C.NO.3844/05 //DISMISSED// 25.2.09 SD/-M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE M.C.HARI RANI, J. ----------------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.No.3844 OF 2005 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY , 2009 O R D E R The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.1241/04 pending on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Hosdurg. The prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is to quash Annexure-II complaint in C.C.No.1241/04. 2. The statement of facts alleged in this petition are as follows: C.C.No.1241/04 is pending before the Court of J.F.C.M.-I, Hosdurg and it was instituted on the basis of a complaint filed by the first respondent on 21.8.2003 alleging offence under Section 498A IPC, copy of which is produced as Annexure-II. The learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and took cognizance of the case against the petitioner as the sole accused. It is further alleged in this petition that Annexure II complaint filed against the petitioner herein by the first respondent is not sustainable for the reason that an earlier complaint has been filed by the first respondent against her CRL.M.C.No.3844/05 -2- divorced husband and the petitioner herein, who is the sister-in-law of the first respondent alleging offence under Section 498A IPC, copy of which is produced as Annexure-I. That complaint was filed on 28.2.2001 relating to the incident of the year 1999. That complaint was sent by the learned Magistrate for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and the police after investigation filed the final report against the divorced husband only and the petitioner herein was deleted from the array of the accused as revealed from Annexure-I complaint. The learned Magistrate on receipt of that refer report proceeded against the divorced husband of the first respondent alone as C.C.No.316/01. Subsequently, on 21.8.2003, the present complaint, which is challenged in this petition, has been filed by the first respondent, which according to the petitioner, is barred by limitation. Hence this petition is filed to quash Annexure II complaint and all further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1241/04. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the first respondent. 4. The relationship between the parties is admitted. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in pursuance of Annexure I complaint filed on 28.2.2001 against the petitioner also by CRL.M.C.No.3844/05 -3- the complainant, the first respondent, the police had investigated the case under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and filed the final report against the divorced husband alone of the complainant and the petitioner herein who is the sister-in-law of the complainant was deleted from the array of the accused. On receipt of that refer report, the learned Magistrate proceeded the case against the divorced husband alone as C.C.No.316/01. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the trial of that case was completed and judgment has been pronounced by the learned Magistrate acquitting the accused in that case/the divorced husband of the first respondent herein. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the first respondent that though the case against the husband of the first respondent was ended in acquittal, it cannot be taken as a ground to quash the present complaint, which was preferred by the first respondent, as she was dissatisfied with the refer report filed by the police in respect of the earlier complaint preferred by her against the petitioner also. Copy of the second complaint preferred by the first respondent is produced along with this petition as Annexure-II, wherein it is complained that specific instances were there regarding the torture made by the petitioner herein against the first respondent CRL.M.C.No.3844/05 -4- and that she has not received copy of the refer report. For that reason, a second complaint has been filed on 21.8.2003. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case as C.C.No.1241/04 only after recording the sworn statement of the complainant and satisfied that sufficient ingredients are there to attract the offence under Section 498A of IPC against the petitioner herein, which cannot be quashed at this stage. 6. On a perusal of the allegations in this petition and also on hearing the argument advanced by both counsel and on a perusal of the documents produced herein, it is evident that the case of the first respondent in the second complaint is that she has not received notice of the refer report and for that reason she has preferred a second complaint against the petitioner herein which was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate and is pending as C.C.No.1241/04. Whether sufficient ingredients are there to attract the offence under Section 498A of IPC against the petitioner herein will be decided by the learned Magistrate after considering the evidence to be adduced on the side of the prosecution and evidence on the defence side if any. The petitioner's case that there are no chance to convict the petitioner even after adducing evidence, cannot be taken as a ground to quash CRL.M.C.No.3844/05 -5- the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The ground that the divorced husband against whom very nature of the complaint with the same facts were stated by the first respondent in the earlier complaint, Annexure-I and was acquitted after trial cannot also be taken into consideration to allow this petition. Considering these aspects and the facts of the case which is in dispute, I find that there is no sufficient ground to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. which has to be exercised only sparingly and with caution and that too to meet the ends of justice. Hence I find that this petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. In the result the Crl.M.C. is dismissed. The petitioner herein is at liberty to advance all the contentions before the learned Magistrate. Sd/- M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn