IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2010 / 5TH SRAVANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 656 of 2010() ------------------------ CC.940/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, HARIPAD .................... PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: ---------------------- ABDUL SALAM MUSSALIAR 24 YEARS, KOCHUPUDUVAL, VALAVANCADU, KESAVAPURAM, VALIYAPARAMBU, KIZHAKKEKARATHEKKU, THRIKKUNNAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DIST. BY ADV. SRI.V.ANIL (K/1480/98) RESPONDENT(S)/STATE: -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESETNED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, THRIKKUNNAPPUZHA POLICE STATION. 2. BEEMA, AGED 18 YEARS, D/O.RAHIYANATH, VALAVANKATTIL VEEDU, KISHAKKEKARA THEKKUM MURI. SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL FOR R2 SRI.V.MADHUSUDHANAN FOR R2 SRI.T.ISSAC FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.656 OF 2010 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of July, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner is the husband of the 2nd respondent. On the basis of two complaints filed by the 2nd respondent, two crimes had been registered against the petitioner. In one of them, apart from the petitioner, some others are also arrayed among the accused. The case of the de facto complainant/2nd respondent is that at the time of filing her complaints in 2008, she was aged 18 years and the petitioner herein attempted to ravish her against her will, and later, on the intervention of some well wishers, he agreed to marry her. Accordingly, he married her. But after a few days, alleging that he had pronounced Talaq and severed their marital relationship, he deserted her. After such desertion, it is her case, criminally trespassing upon her house, the petitioner assaulted her causing injury. In relation to the criminal trespass and assault, she filed a complaint before the CRL.M.C.656/10 2 Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Harippad, and that complaint being forwarded to the Police for investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C, Crime No.199 of 2008 of Thrikkunnapuzha Police Station was registered for offences punishable under Sections 452, 427 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner as the accused therein. Annexure A2 is the copy of the F.I.R in the above crime. The 2nd respondent had also filed another complaint against the petitioner and some others, five in number, imputing offences falling under Sections 376, 351, 354, 452, 341, 511 read with 34 of the IPC. Crime No.198 of 2008 for the above said offences was registered at the same Police Station against the five persons named as accused in her complaint. When the crimes registered were pending investigation, petitioner herein along with other accused, had approached this Court for quashing one among the crimes, Crime No.198 of 2008 by moving an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. His request was turned down vide Annexure A7 order dated 28.1.2010 in Crl.M.C.No.4096 of 2009 holding CRL.M.C.656/10 3 that no case has been made out for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for the reliefs canvassed. Pursuant thereto, in both the crimes, after investigation, the police had filed final reports before the J.F.C.M.Court concerned. At this stage, the petitioner has again approached this Court for quashing the final reports in both the crimes, contending that the complaints imputed against him are frivolous and vexatious and are intended only to harass him. 2. Perusing the annexures produced with the petition and also taking note of the submissions made by the counsel on both sides and also the learned Public Prosecutor, I find this is not a fit case where interference over the final reports filed by the Police, after investigation in the crimes, is called for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction vested with this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Whatever defenses available to the petitioner can be canvassed in the trial of the case, and on the materials placed, I find, no interference with the final reports is CRL.M.C.656/10 4 permissible as it cannot be stated that the imputations levelled against the petitioner are groundless. The petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp CRL.M.C.656/10 5