IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2008 / 13TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 46 of 2005 ----------------------- CRIME NO. 288/2004 OF THENHIPALAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER: ------------ C.P.ABOOBACKER, S/O. THAREEKUTY, CHUNDANVEETTIL, RAYIRIMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. FATHIMA, D/O. HYDERALI, 26 YEARS, MELERAKKAL HOUSE, IDIMUCHIKKAL, P.O. PULLIPARAMBU, CHELAMBRA AMSOM DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTORMR. P.A. SALIM SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 4-8-2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.M.A. NO. 141/2005 IN CRL.M.C. NO. 46/2005 DISMISSED. 4-8-2008 SD/- M.C. HARI RANI, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI, J. ====================== CRL.M.C.NO. 46 of 2005 ======================== Dated this the 4th day of August 2008 ORDER The petitioner is the 4th accused in Crime No.288/2004 of Thenhipalam police station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of the private complaint preferred by the second respondent herein before the Judicial first Class Magistrate Court, Parapanangadi. A copy of the complaint is produced as Annexure-A. Annexure-B is the copy of the F.I.R. registered by the Thenhipalam police against accused Nos.1 to 5 including the petitioner also as the 4th accused. The prayer in this petition is to quash the entire proceedings in Crime No.288/2004 of Thenhipalam police station against the petitioner. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the second respondent. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. CRMC. 46/2005 -2- 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Crime No.288/2004 of Thenhipalam police station was registered against five accused for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of the private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Parappanangadi. The second respondent is the wife of the first accused, Abdul Nazar. The petitioner, who is the 4th accused in the above crime, is working as the Sub Treasury Officer at Adimali. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner has no relationship with the first accused in this crime and he has got only a distant relationship with the second wife of the first accused, Ayisha who is the second accused in the crime. Further the allegation as revealed from the complaint, Annexure- A, is that on 30-10-2004 all the accused came to the house of the second respondent and demanded gold ornaments and money and ill-treated her both mentally and physically. According to the petitioner, on 30-10-2004, he was working as the Sub Treasury Officer at Adimali as revealed from the copy of the attendance certificate, Anenxure-C issued by the District CRMC. 46/2005 -3- Treasury Officer, Idukki. Therefore, the allegations levelled against the petitioner in Annenxure-A complaint did not constitute any ingredients for the offences under Sections 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner, who is not a relative of the first accused, who is the husband of the second respondent. For these reasons this petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in Crime No.288/2004 of Thenhipalam police station against the petitioner who is the 4th accused . 4. This petition is opposed by the second respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted that there are valid and convincing allegations against the petitioner who is incorporated as 4th accused in the crime and that those allegations are sufficient to investigate the mater against that accused also. The submission made by the counsel for the second respondent is reiterated by the learned Public Prosecutor also. 5. On a perusal of Annexures A and B, I find that there are sufficient ingredients against the petitioner, who is incorporated as 4th accused in Crime No.288/2004 and it is the duty of CRMC. 46/2005 -4- investigating officers to investigate the matter on the basis of the allegations in the complaint. The investigation of the F.I.R,Annexure-B, has been stayed by this Court and is not proceeded with. The absence of the petitioner at the relevant time and place of the alleged incident and his innocence etc. are valid defence of the petitioner which can be raised by him before the trial court. This Court cannot go through those facts which is disputed and to come to a conclusion about the same on the basis of the attendance certificate, Annexure-C. In the circumstances, this court cannot exercise the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.and this petition is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Crl.M.C. is dismissed. M.C. HARI RANI JUDGE ks.