IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2010 / 7TH ASHADHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3917 of 2009() ------------------------- CRIME NO.427/2009 OF POOJAPPURA POLICE STATION PETITIONER(S): 2ND ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------- P.SASIDHARAN, KRISHNA KRIPA, NEAR J M HALL, VELLARADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695505. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SMT.SMITHA GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): STATE COMPLAINANT & A1 & A3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. SRI. K.SOMASEKHARAN NAIR, T.C.8/895, NIRANJANA AER 87, ELLUVILA NAGAR, THIRUMALA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SRI. G.SUDARSHANAN, KARTHIKA BHAVAN, VETTUKATTUVILA, MONDAY MARKET, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT. 4. SRI. S.A. PRADEEP, KARTHIKA BHAVAN, VETTUKATTUVILA, MONDAY MARKET,KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S.HRITHWICK SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/06/2010, ALONG WITH CRMC NO. 4074 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.Nos.3917 & 4074 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 28 th day of June, 2010 ORDER Petitioners in Crl.M.C No.4074 of 2009 are a father and a son (Sudharshanan and Pradeep). They are accused Nos.1 and 3 in Crime No.427 of 2009 of Poojapura Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 420, 506(ii) read with 34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 1969. The marriage between the 2nd petitioner Pradeep and Preethi the daughter of the de facto complainant was agreed to be solemnised on 30.10.2009. But the marriage did not take place and on 23.10.2009 the de facto complainant advertised in the Mathrubhumi daily that the marriage which was fixed to be held on 30.10.2009 was postponed. Thereafter, the de facto complainant lodged Annexure C complaint before the Poojappura Police alleging the aforesaid offences and the Police registered the aforesaid crime. After investigation, the Police filed the final report before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram who took cognizance of the offences and has registered the case as C.C.No.86/2010. The prayer in Crl. M.C. Nos.3917 & 4074 / 2009 2 Crl.M.C.No.4074/2009 is to quash Annexure C F.I.R. The prayer in Crl.M.C.No.3917/2009 filed by one Sasidharan (A2) who is the uncle of one Pradeep (A3) is to quash Annexure C F.I.R. 2. The ground put forward for quashing the F.I.R is that on 21.10.2009 there was an agreement executed between the two fathers as well as the prospective groom whereby the groom's side had withdrawn from the marriage and had returned the photographs, horoscope, a C.D. containing the marriage fixing ceremony, a sample blouse of Preethi etc. 3. The petitioners would have it that when the marriage was agreed to be cancelled as per Annexure A agreement to which both parties affixed their signatures, there was no question of any cheating and therefore the subsequent complaint filed by the girl's father and the crime registered were all unsustainable. 4. The learned counsel for the de facto complainant would dispute the agreement and would say that the signatures were obtained under duress and that every word stated in the complaint is true. It is a disputed question of fact. Crl. M.C. Nos.3917 & 4074 / 2009 3 5. It is too early for this Court sitting in the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to come to a conclusion either way regarding the legality or otherwise of Annexure A agreement. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences. The remedy of the petitioners is to seek for a discharge if grounds to do so exist. Accordingly, without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to plead for discharge before the Magistrate these Crl.M.Cs are dismissed. In case the petitioners file an application for personal exemption before the Magistrate for considering their contention of discharge, the learned Magistrate shall allow the same. The learned Magistrate shall not insist upon the personal appearance of the petitioner before the court below for the disposal of the discharge petition. Dated this the 28th day of June, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj