IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2008 / 27TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1538 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.1604/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ALUVA .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- J.JACOB, G-5, VRINDAVAN GARDEN, NEAR S.N.JUNCTION, THRIPPUNITHURA. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAVIKUMAR RESPONDENT:COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, (CRIME NO. 128 OF 2002 OF THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION). *ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED: R2. SMT. SOSAMMA JACOB, W/O.J.JACOB, RESIDING AT 6/487, KOLLAMKUDIMUGAL, THRIKKAKARA, KOCHI – 21. (*ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD.3/06/208 IN CRL.M.A.NO.2887/08) BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR-R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.M.SHERIF - ADDL.R2 SRI.P.M.KUNJIMOIDEENKUTTY - ADDL.R2 SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH - ADDL.R2 SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN – ADDL.R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.1538 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of July, 2008 ORDER The petitioner is the sole accused in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.498A IPC. Cognizance was taken as early as in 2003. The petitioner has not entered appearance so far. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police. That crime, in turn, was registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the additional 2nd respondent - the wife of the petitioner. Marriage is admitted. Birth of the children in such marriage is also admitted. The de facto complainant i.e, the 2nd respondent/wife alleged that the petitioner is guilty of matrimonial cruelty of the culpable variety against her. She alleged that the petitioner was guilty of infliction of physical and mental cruelty on her. 2. The complaint was referred to the police under Crl.M.C. No.1538 of 2008 -: 2 :- Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. A crime was registered. Investigation was conducted and final report was filed. According to the petitioner, the allegations are totally false and unjustified. He prays that the powers under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash the proceedings against him. 3. What are the grounds? The learned counsel submits that there is inordinate delay in filing of the complaint. Though the marriage had taken place as early as in 1972, the complaint was filed only in 2002. The learned counsel further submits that only the de facto complainant and the son of the couple have given statements before the police in support of the allegations of matrimonial cruelty. These circumstances, according to me, are not sufficient to justify the invocation of the powers under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. The mere fact that the wife had tolerated and suffered the alleged infliction of physical and mental cruelty without demur for a long period of time cannot justify an omnibus discarding of her case. It would be idle to expect absolutely disinterested independent persons to perceive the matrimonial cruelty that had taken place inside the house. In these circumstances, the contention that only the victim and her son have spoken about the matrimonial cruelty to the police is by itself not sufficient to Crl.M.C. No.1538 of 2008 -: 3 :- persuade this Court to invoke the jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. 4. I may hasten to observe that I have not intended to express any opinion on the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that I take note of the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction of this Court exercising the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. Sufficient materials have not been placed before me to justify the prayer for invocation of the powers under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. 5. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed. But I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this Crl.M.C. will not, in any way, fetter the rights of the petitioner to raise all appropriate relevant contentions before the learned Magistrate to claim discharge/acquittal at the appropriate stage. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge