IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 21ST MAGHA 1932 CRL.MC.NO. 330 OF 2011() ------------------------------------- CRIME NO.809 OF 2010 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. KUNHASSI, W/O.LATE CHENOTH IBRAHIM, "CHENOTH MOOVALAPPIL", VADAKKUMPADU, RAMANTHALI P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. SHAHIDA, D/O.LATE CHENOTH IBRAHIM, "CHENOTH MOOVALAPPIL", VADAKKUMPADU, RAMANTHALI P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. HARIS, S/O.LATE CHENOTH IBRAHIM, "CHENOTH MOOVALAPPIL", VADAKKUMPADU, RAMANTHALI P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. MUSTHAFA, "CHENOTH MOOVALAPPIL", VADAKKUMPADU, RAMANTHALI P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.JOHNY THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. SUMAYYA, W/O.HUSSAINAR, `SUMAYYA MANZIL', PMC-IX-854, THAZHATHVAYAL, PERUMBA, P.O.PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.330 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 10th day of February, 2011 O R D E R Petitioners are accused 2 to 5 in Crime No.809 of 2010 of Payyannur Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 315 and 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Annexure-AIII is the complaint preferred by respondent No.1 which was forwarded for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”) and based on which the FIR was registered. Annexure-AIII, complaint contained allegations that petitioners and first accused directly or indirectly had always been demanding more ornaments and money and a share in the property of mother of respondent No.1. It is alleged that the first accused assaulted respondent No.1 on 13.12.2010 which was happily watched by the petitioners who even scolded her. There are certain other allegations also in the complaint implicating petitioners and the first accused. It is stated that first respondent at the time she was allegedly assaulted by the first accused was carrying, she consulted a medical officer who advised her to have termination of the pregnancy (due to the CRL.M.C. No.330 of 2011 -: 2 :- alleged assault on her) and accordingly the pregnancy was aborted on 26.12.2008 (due to first accused kicking her on the abdomen). 2. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioners that complaint is nothing but a sequel to the first accused not complying with the demand of respondent No.1 to have a separate residence. First accused had issued Annexure-AI, notice on 20.03.2010 seeking restitution of conjugal rights to which first respondent gave Annexure-AII, reply dated 07.04.2010. Learned counsel invited my attention to paragraphs 9 and 10 of Annexure- AII, reply where respondent No.1 is stated to have expressed her desire to have a separate residence with the first accused. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that police is harassing petitioners in the light of the FIR. Learned counsel contends that this is a fit case where FIR is to be quashed. 3. Truth or otherwise of the allegations in the complaint and FIR are not required to be gone into in a proceeding under Sec.482 of the Code. Allegations and counter allegations made by the parties is a matter which should attract the attention of the officer who is investigating the case who shall ascertain whether the allegations are correct and if so who committed what offence. I am sure , the Investigating Officer will look into all these aspects CRL.M.C. No.330 of 2011 -: 3 :- in the matter including the stand of petitioners as to why the first respondent has filed the complaint, before concluding as to whether any offence has been committed. In that view of the matter I do not find reason to stall the investigation. But I direct that the Investigating Officer shall not cause any harassment to the petitioners while investigating the case. In case any final report is filed against petitioners it is open to them to meet the same as provided under law. I also make it clear that it is open to the petitioners to move appropriate court with application for bail and if any such application is preferred the court concerned shall dispose of the same having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of with the above observations and directions. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv