IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 638 of 2008() ---------------------------------- CC.95/2007 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.3 ---------------------- RAJAMMA ,W/O. JANARADHANAN EDAYILAPARAMBIL VEEDU, MYLAPRA VILLAGE PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SEETHA E.V.D/O. SASIDHARAN ELLUMVILAYIL, ARUNOOTIMANAGALAM MAVELIKKARA,ALAPPUZHA,NOW RESIDING AT NO.16/15 KULLAKUMBY, NILGRIS, TAMIL NADU. 3. S.I. OF POLICE PATHANAMTHITTA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.GIKKU JACOB BY ADVS. MR.P.A.AHAMMED FOR R2 MR.THOUFEEK AHAMED FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- CRL.M.C.No. 638 OF 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. 95/2007 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta. The 3rd accused is the petitioner before me. The defacto complainant was married by the 1st accused on 14.9.2006 and the matrimonial relationship did not last long. It is averred in the complaint that 1st accused did have liking for the girl, but she did not respond and thereafter he had married her and is taking a retaliating attitude against the wife. I do not elaborate since the quashing is filed by the 3rd respondent who is the mother of the 1st accused. The averments are seen in paragraphs 4, 6 and 11 of the complaint. In para 4 it is averred that accused Nos. 2 and 3 used to hurt her and even used to make comments when she properly dresses. It is also alleged that the 1st accused was instructed to treat the wife cruelly. In para 6 it is averred that the present petitioner had met the 1st accused to get the ornaments from the wife and it has been done by the husband. In para 11 also the allegations against accused Nos. 2 and 3 are Crl.M.C. 638/2008 -2- very much available. It is further recited in para 7 regarding act of cruelty. So there are specific averments with respect to the harassment. Though the police initially filed charge sheet against all, subsequently it filed a re-investigating report whereby stating that the whole case is false. Thereafter the learned Magistrate on a protest complaint had considered the matter elaborately and had come to the conclusion that it is to be taken not of. There are averments and statement of persons against all the accused. Whether it is true or it can be relied upon are all matters that can be decided only after the witnesses face cross examination. Therefore at this stage, I do not find any ground to quash the proceedings. Since the 3rd accused is a lady, the mother-in-law, when she moves an application for exemption from personal appearance, let that be considered sympathetically by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and pass appropriate orders. If the petitioner wants to file an application for discharge, that also may be done and let it be decided in accordance with law. The Crl.M.C is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm