IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 4TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4994 of 2008() ----------------------------- CC.1963/2008 of J.M.F.C.-I, KOLLAM CRIME NO.174/08 OF SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION PETITIONER -------------------- NAVAS KHAN, 34 YEARS, ROSE HOUSE CHANDANATHOPE PO., KOLLAM BY ADV. SRI.A.FEROS KHAN SRI.ABHILASH S.FRANCIS RESPONDENT --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE S.I. OF POLICE, SASTHAMCOTTA, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 4994 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th September, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 498A and 323 of Indian Penal Code. The crime was registered on the basis of a private complaint, which was forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Petitioner is the husband of the de facto complainant, who allegedly harassed the de facto complainant physically and mentally after the marriage, demanding gold etc. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that on the same set of allegations, a private complaint was filed by the de facto complainant and it ended in an acquittal, as per order dated 27.4.2007 in C.C.No.1963/2006. The de facto complainant filed this complaint again, for harassing the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is prepared to join the de facto complainant and he had actually wanted a reunion. But, she was not willing for the same, though the case was referred to the Lok Adalat. The de facto complainant was insisting the petitioner to live separately from the petitioner's house. Her brother had joined for Engineering Course in Tamil Nadu and she wanted the petitioner to reside in Tamil Nadu, for which he was not willing. This is only the difference of BA.4994/08 2 opinion, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the de facto complainant had filed a complaint earlier and the matter was settled and the petitioner was acquitted also. She joined the petitioner after this, but, the illtreatment continued and petitioner demanded Rs.5 lakhs and harassed the de facto complainant. 5. After hearing both sides, I have put a definite question to the learned counsel for petitioner whether the earlier complaint and the present complaint are on the same set of allegations. He asserted repeatedly that those are on the same allegations. But, on going through the complaint, I find that the present complaint is made on subsequent acts committed by the petitioner which amounts to cruelty. Though the learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner was willing to accept the de facto complainant and he wanted a reunion as per the observations made, the Lok Adalat attempted to persuade the parties to settle the dispute and live together as husband and wife, but there was no satisfactory response from the “parties” and the Lok Adalat felt that there is no possibility of settlement in the Lok Adalat. 6. Therefore, I cannot accept the submissions made by BA.4994/08 3 learned counsel for petitioner that the attitude of the petitioner was also favourable for a settlement and reunion. In the above circumstances, on the facts of the case, and in the nature of the allegations made, which include even physical assault on 3.2.2008, after the reunion, based on which offence under Section 323 IPC was also added, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.