IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2009 / 19TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 121 of 2009() ----------------------------------- CC.128/2007 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NOS.3 & 4 -------------------------------- 1. LAKSHMI, AGED 70 YEARS, W/O.SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT, KARINJA MUNNAR HOUSE, P.O.EDNAD, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. M.GEETHA, AGED 45 YEARS, D/O.SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT, KARINJA MUNNAR HOUSE, P.O.EDNAD, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE - REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.121 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of January, 2009 ORDER Petitioners are mother in law and sister in law respectively of the defacto complainant in an indictment under Section 498 A I.P.C. Cognizance was taken in that case on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation in a crime registered. That crime in turn was registered on the basis of a complaint filed by the defacto complainant before the learned Magistrate and referred by the learned Magistrate to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Petitioners are arrayed as accused 3 and 4 in that complaint. 2. The police, after due investigation, filed a final report, in which it was alleged that accused 1 and 2 alone, ie. the husband and father in law of the defacto complainant, had committed the offence punishable under Section 498 A I.P.C. Cognizance was taken. Trial proceeded. Witnesses were examined. PWs 1 to 9 were examined and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked on the side of the prosecution. The case was thereafter posted for 313 examination. At that stage the learned Crl.M.C. No.121 of 2009 2 Magistrate found that though allegations were raised against the petitioners in the complaint filed by the defacto complainant, they had not been arrayed as accused. The learned Magistrate, it appears, found that there was sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioners herein also. On the basis of the evidence on oath tendered by the witnesses before court, the learned Magistrate entertained the satisfaction that the petitioners herein also do deserve to be summoned and arrayed as accused 3 and 4 in the case. Accordingly invoking the jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C, the petitioners have been brought on the array of accused. Annexure-7 is the order passed by the learned Magistrate exercising his jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C to bring the petitioners on the array of accused. 3. The petitioners claim to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance ? The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though similar allegations were raised by the petitioners in the complaint, after investigation, the police had decided to drop the allegations against the petitioners. In these circumstances there is no justification in the present action by the learned Magistrate to array the petitioners as accused. Crl.M.C. No.121 of 2009 3 4. I shall carefully avoid any detailed discussion on merits about the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data collected against them. The mere fact that the investigators had dropped the petitioners from the array of accused, cannot justifiably entitle the petitioners to any immunity from impleadment under Section 319 Cr.P.C. I have gone through the averments in the complaint. The allegations raised against the petitioners in the course of evidence by the witnesses have also been referred to. I need only mention that I am unable to agree that there are any circumstances justifying or warranting the invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to interfere with the impugned order passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 5. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioners to raise all appropriate and relevant contentions before the learned Magistrate at subsequent stage. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-