IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2008 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1820 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.300/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KATTAKADA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ 1. BABU, S/O. KUTTAPPAN, THUBOTTUKONAM ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, ARUVIKKARA, KOOVALASSERY P.O., MARANALLOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA. 2. KUTTAPPAN, S/O. NEETHUSA, THUBOTTUKONAM ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, ARUVIKKARA, KOOVALASSERY P.O., MARANALLOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA. 3. GOMATHI, D/O. KARTHI, THUBOTTUKONAM ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, ARUVIKKARA, KOOVALASSERY P.O., MARANALLOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA. 4. ANITHA, D/O. GOMATHI, POOVAN VILLA, ATTARIKATHU VEEDU, KOOVALASSERY P.O., MARANALLOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA. 5. BINU, S/O. KRISHNAN, POOVAN VILLA, ATTARIKATHU VEEDU, KOOVALASSERY P.O., MARANALLOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.SREEKANTH S.NAIR ...........2 -: 2 :- RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. LAILA, D/O. KALYANI, EBIN BHAVAN, NEDUMPARA, KODANNOOR, MARANALLOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 1820 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2008 ORDER The petitioners, five in number, are accused 1 to 5. They are the husband and the relatives of the husband of the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant had filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate which was referred to the police under Sec.156(3) of the Cr.P.C. An F.I.R. was registered. Investigation was conducted and the final report was filed by the police alleging offences punishable under Sec.498A read with Sec.34 of the IPC against all the five petitioners. It is alleged in the final report that they are guilty of matrimonial cruelty of the culpable variety punishable under Sec.498A of the IPC. They, it is alleged, had acted in furtherance of their common intention. The marriage had taken place on 16/9/93. The alleged cruelty has been Crl.M.C. No. 1820 of 2008 -: 2 :- committed in 2005. Cognizance has been taken. Calendar Case has been registered. The petitioners have entered appearance before the learned Magistrate. They have been enlarged on bail. 2. The petitioners have come to this Court with a prayer that the prosecution initiated against them may be quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this Court under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. What is the ground? The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the allegations are all false. In support of this contention, the learned counsel urges that the allegations of matrimonial cruelty have not been raised earlier; nor had they been raised in defence in proceedings initiated by the 1st petitioner against the de facto complainant. In these circumstances, it is contended that the allegations are false. The petitioners may not be compelled to endure the trauma in this prosecution. In the interests of justice proceedings may be quashed, it is urged. 3. I must alertly remind myself of the nature and quality of the jurisdiction of this Court under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. The disputed question of facts cannot be attempted to be resolved in proceedings under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. There can possibly be no contention in this case that the allegations raised, if accepted Crl.M.C. No. 1820 of 2008 -: 3 :- in toto, will not reveal the offence alleged under Sec.498A of the IPC. I shall not embark on any detailed discussions on merits about the acceptability of the allegations. Suffice it to say that I am not persuaded to agree that, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. can or ought to be invoked. This, I am of opinion, is a fit case where the petitioners must appear before the learned Magistrate and stake their claim for discharge or acquittal as the case may be. 4. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed. Needless to say, the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioners to claim the relief of discharge/acquittal from the court below. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge