IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4809 of 2008() ------------------------- FIR NO. 194 OF 2005 OF CHANGANACHERRY POLICE STATION CC.255/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, CHANGANACHERRY .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- K.RAJEEV, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, USHAS HOUSE, SREEKARYAM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.A.K.PREETHA SRI.M.R.RAJESH RESPONDENT(S): (DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE) --------------------------------------------- 1. GEETHA, D/O.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, TRIVENI HOUSE, PERUNNA MURI, PERUNNA VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 4809 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of December, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 498A I.P.C. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of the final report submitted by the police after due investigation. Cognizance has been taken long earlier as can be seen from the number assigned to the case – C.C. 255 of 2005. The matter is pending before the learned Magistrate. Trial has not started, it is submitted. Charges have already been framed. 2. The petitioner has now come to this Court with a plea that the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash the proceedings against him. What is the reason? Why is the petitioner coming to this Court at this juncture, though the matter is pending from 2005? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations raised do not amount to an offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. at all. I am unable to accept this contention. I am Crl.M.C.No. 4809 of 2008 2 not proceeding to consider in detail the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that I find no merit in the contention that the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be invoked to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 3. If charges have not already been framed, it shall be open to the petitioner to raise his plea for discharge. If charges have already been framed and the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the order framing charge in revision, the petitioner will have to stand trial and attempt to establish his alleged innocence in the course of the proceedings. In any view of the matter, I find no merit in the prayer for invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. The learned counsel further submits that there is a proceedings pending before the Family Court and attempts are being made to settle the dispute by conciliation etc. The learned counsel airs an apprehension that continuance of this prosecution may affect the chances of a harmonious settlement. It is for the petitioner to raise that plea before the learned Magistrate and pray for some time for Crl.M.C.No. 4809 of 2008 3 commencement of the trial, before which the attempt for conciliation/settlement can be worked out and completed . The petitioner must make such request before the learned Magistrate, who must consider such request and take appropriate decision in the matter. 5. This Crl.M.C. is dismissed with the above observations. (R. BASANT) Judge tm