IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2011 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1501 of 2011() ------------------------------------ CMP.116/2011 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, NEDUMANGAD. CRIME NO.24/2011 OF VATTIYOORKAVU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. .................... PETITIONER(S): 4TH ACCUSED --------------------------------------------- BINDU.L., D/O.LEELA, PULIMMOTTIL VEEDU, CHIRAKADAVAM, KAYAMKULAM (PO), ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT KIZHAKKEL HOUSE, MEENACHAL (PO), PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN SMT.REVATHY P.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VATTIYOORKAVU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. S.ASHALATHA, D/O.RAMANI SUKUMARAN, SURAMYA, TC NO.10/1865, I.A.S.COLONY, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.J.MOHAMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.1501 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of May, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is the fourth accused in Crime No.24 of 2011 of Vattiyoorkavu Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506(ii) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”). She, along with others is alleged to have subjected the defacto complainant to cruelty and criminally intimidated her. According to the petitioner, no part of the incident has taken place within the local limits of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Nedumangad or the Vattiyoorkavu Police Station and hence the complaint is not maintainable before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate was not competent to direct investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. 2. The question as to where exactly the cause of action has arisen for an action under Section 498A of the IPC depends upon various aspects. I, Annexure-A1, complaint there is an averment that some of the incidents referred to in the complaint has occurred at the house of defacto complainant at Vattiyoorkavu which is within the local limits of Vattiyoorkavu Police Station and indisputably within the jurisdiction of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Nedumangad. Whether learned Magistrate has jurisdiction to entertain the Crl.MC No.1501/2011 2 complaint and direct the Vattiyoorkavu Police to register a case and investigate the same are matters which has to be considered by the learned Magistrate at the appropriate stage. This Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not required to interfere in the matter and give any opinion, at this stage either way. Hence without prejudice to the right of petitioner to challenge jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate at the appropriate stage this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks