IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2010 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 811 of 2010() ---------------------------------- CRRP.36/2009 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, (ADHOC-I), ERNAKULAM CMP.8781/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KOLENCHERRY .................... PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT IN CMP.8781/07/REV.PETITIONER IN RP.36/09 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- M.P. AYYAPPAN, S/O.PUTHENKAVI, AGED 40 YEARS, MANAKKAKUDIYIL VEEDU, PANCODE KARA, PANCODE.P.O, AIKKARANAD NORTH VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB, SRI.M.P.CHOTHY. RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED IN CMP.8781/07/RESPONDENTS IN RP.36/09 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. MANJU, D/O.AYYAPPAN, THOZHUTHUMPATTU, VENKITAKARA, BAKTANANDAPURAM.P.O, THIRUVANIYOOR VILLAGE. 2. AYYAPPAN, THOZHUTHUMPATTU, VENKITAKARA, BAKTANANDAPURAM.P.O, THIRUVANIYOOR VILLAGE. 3. THANKAMMA, W/O.AYYAPPAN, THOZHUTHUMPATTU, VENKITAKARA, BAKTANANDAPURAM.P.O, THIRUVANIYOOR VILLAGE. 4. BINDU, D/O.AYYAPPAN, THOZHUTHUMPATTU, VENKITAKARA, BAKTANANDAPURAM.P.O, THIRUVANIYOOR VILLAGE. 5. SINDHU, D/O.AYYAPPAN, THOZHUTHUMPATTU, VENKITAKARA, BAKTANANDAPURAM.P.O, THIRUVANIYOOR VILLAGE. 6. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R6 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.C.S. HRITHWIK. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. V.RAMKUMAR, J. ------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 811 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of May, 2010 ORDER Petitioner, who is the complainant in C.M.P.No.8781/2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kolencherry, alleging offences punishable under Sections 417, 120B read with 34 of the IPC against his wife Manju and her parents and sisters. According to the petitioner, the first respondent wife was infertile and therefore incapable of conceiving since she was not having regular menstruation and she was having hypoplastic uterus. The petitioner would have it that it was suppressing the above defects in his wife that he was dragged into matrimony. 2. Both the trial court as well as the Sessions court in revision filed by the petitioner against the dismissal of the complaint came to a conclusion that even though CW3 doctor partly supported the petitioner regarding the gynecological problem of his wife, CW2 Dr.Sumangala Devi on the contrary did not support the petitioner. The above finding has been recorded after a careful evaluation of the evidence of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. This court sitting in the Crl.M.C. No.811 of 2010 : 2 : rarefied jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C will be loath to interfere with the above finding. This criminal M.C is accordingly dismissed. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE dmb Crl.M.C. No.811 of 2010 : 3 :