IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2008 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4632 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.658/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): IST ACCUSED -------------------------- A.P.MAHAMOOD,S/O AYISHA, ANCHARAPPAD HOUSE, NEAR THALAKKAL PALLI, P.O.PUTHIYANGADI. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.ABDUL AZEEZ RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. VADAKKE MUKKUVANCHERRY SAKKEENA, D/O.ERAMULLAN, NEAR THANGAL PALLI.P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.4632 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December, 2008 ORDER Petitioner is the 1st accused in a prosecution under Section 498 A I.P.C. There are 6 other co-accused. The petitioner is the husband of the complainant. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a private complaint filed by the complainant. In the complaint she alleges that the marriage took place on 02.07.2000 and the parties lived together till 04.08.2000, on which date the petitioner went abroad. He allegedly came back and the spouses lived together for some period of time from August-September, 2003. He left India thereafter leaving the complainant at her residence. It is alleged that during the period that the spouses lived together, the husband and his relatives are guilty of matrimonial cruelty of the culpable variety under Section 498 A r/w 34 I.P.C. On the complaint filed by the complainant/wife cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. The prosecution is pending. 2. At this stage, the petitioner/1st accused alone has come to this Court with a prayer that proceedings initiated against him may be quashed. Crl.M.C. No.4632 of 2008 2 3. What is the reason ? There is no contention, and no such contention can validly be raised, that the complaint is barred by limitation. The complaint is seen filed in May, 2006 and it relates to allegations of matrimonial cruelty till 08.10.03. The plea of limitation is thus not available. 4. The counsel contends that the allegations raised are false and that the allegations raised are not sufficient to attract culpability under Section 498 A I.P.C. 5. I do not find any merit in this contention. The allegations do constitute the offence under Section 498 A I.P.C. Allegations of matrimonial cruelty of the culpable variety during the two instances when the parties were living together are certainly raised. At the moment and with the available inputs, it is not possible for this Court to come to the conclusion that the allegations are so unacceptable or perverse that the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C can or ought to be invoked to quash the proceedings. It is for the petitioner to raise appropriate contention before the learned Magistrate after appearing before the learned Magistrate. I am not persuaded to agree that the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C can or ought to be invoked. Crl.M.C. No.4632 of 2008 3 6. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that I have not intended to consider the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the defence which the petitioner wants to set up. I have chosen only to take the view that extraordinary inherent jurisdiction does not deserve to be invoked. Needless to say, if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Magistrate and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to consider such application on merits, in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-