IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2008 / 24TH ASWINA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3843 of 2008() ------------------------- [CRIME NO.285/2008 OF MANJESWARAM POLICE STATION] PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- 1. AYISHA, AGED 56 YEARSW, W/O. ABDULLA. 2. NASEERA, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O. NABEESA. 3. JAMMI @ JAMEELA, AGED 35 YEARS, D/O. ABDULLA. 4. MOHAMMED, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. ABDULLA. 5. SHAREEF, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. ABDULLA. 6. BASHEER @ PDP BASHEER, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS (ALL ARE RESIDING ATG IRSHAD NAGAR, KUNJATHUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT) BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MANJESWARAM POLICE STATION, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SAKEENA BANU, AGED 22 YEARS, D/O. IBRAHIM, THALIPADAPU HOUSE, KINYA VILLAGE AND POST, MANGLORE TALUK, D.K. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3843 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of October 2008 O R D E R Against the petitioners, a crime has been registered wherein they are arrayed as accused 2 to 7. That crime has been registered alleging offences punishable inter alia under Section 498A I.P.C. Altogether there are seven accused. Petitioners are accused 2 to 7. The de facto complainant is the wife of the first accused and the petitioners are all relatives of the first accused. Allegations of matrimonial cruelty of the culpable variety are raised against the petitioners. The crime has been registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the de facto complainant before the learned Magistrate and referred by the learned Magistrate to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The petitioners have now come to this court with the prayer that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to quash the F.I.R registered against them. 2. What is the reason? The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent. The de facto complainant has given birth to a child. Her husband is Crl.M.C.No.3843/08 2 residing abroad. The petitioners are willing to accommodate the de facto complainant and the child happily and harmoniously along with them. But she is unwilling to reside with them. She is making false allegations of matrimonial cruelty with the sole intention of vexing and harassing the petitioners. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the F.I.R may be quashed. 3. I am afraid, the prayer cannot be accepted. At the present stage and with the available inputs this court cannot enter any authentic finding as to whether the allegations raised in the complaint are correct or whether the assertions made by the petitioners in this petition are correct. A proper investigation will have to be conducted. In such investigation, the investigating officer shall have to ascertain the truth. Appropriate further action will have to be taken. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners apprehend that succumbing to the influence of the affluent father of the de facto complainant, the petitioners may be vexed and harassed. I shall not lightly assume that the police shall do the same and if the petitioners really apprehend any such unfair action on the part of the police, they must either seek anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C or must Crl.M.C.No.3843/08 3 surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. There is absolutely no necessity or warrant to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction to quash the F.I.R. 5. It is prayed that directions may be issued to secure the interest of the petitioners. As stated earlier, the petitioners will either have to apply for anticipatory bail or must choose to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail if they do not expect justice from the police. I need only mention that if the petitioners surrender before the learned Magistrate and apply for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must follow the dictum in Alice George vs.Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1)KLT 339] and proceed to dispose of the application on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. No more or specific directions appear to be necessary. 6. This Crl.M.C is in these circumstances dismissed but with the above observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.3843/08 4 Crl.M.C.No.3843/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008