IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 8TH ASWINA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3682 of 2008() ------------------------- CRIME NO. 498/08 OF ARANMULA POLICE STATION PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 2 TO 4 ----------------------------- 1. RAJESWARI ASOKAN ALIAS SHEELA ASOKAN, AMBADY, PARUTHIYARA, ODANAVATTOM, KOTTARAKKARA. 2. AJI ASOKAN, -DO- 3. G. ASOKAN, -DO- BY ADV. SRI.N.SUKUMARAN SRI.S.SHYAM RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTIONS, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ARANMULA, REPRESENTED BY -DO- 3. NITHYA SOMAN, D/O. SOMA SUNDARA PANICKER, SREE SAILAM, KUZHIKKALA.P.O, KOZHENCHERRYM PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. R1 & 2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 3682 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of September, 2008 O R D E R The petitioners are accused 2 to 4 in a crime registered alleging the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. They are the mother, brother and father respectively of the first accused, who is the husband of the defacto complainant, i.e. the third respondent herein. 2. The crime was registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the third respondent before the learned Magistrate, which was referred to the police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Investigation is in progress. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations raised against the petitioners are totally false and that such allegations are raised with transparent malafides and with the sole intention of retaliating against the first accused, who has initiated proceedings for divorce against the defacto complainant. Only to vex and harass the petitioners such allegations have been Crl.M.C.No. 3682 of 2008 2 raised, it is contended. It is prayed that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may in these circumstances be invoked to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. The learned counsel submits that the learned Magistrate erred grossly in not taking note of the various circumstances and in mechanically referring the complaint to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. In the nature of the allegations raised, better and closer application of mind is necessary when the reference is made under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate, contends the learned counsel. 4. I am called upon to invoke the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The crux of the contention is that the allegations raised are not true and are false. There is no contention even raised before me that the allegations raised, if accepted, would not reveal the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. The argument is that the allegations are false and are raised vexatiously. 5. It is contended that there has been long delay in filing the complaint. The marriage took place on 27.1.2008. Parties resided Crl.M.C.No. 3682 of 2008 3 together till 30.3.08. The complaint was filed and the F.I.R. was consequently registered only on 18.9.08. Between 30.3.08 and 18.9.08 the first accused had filed a petition for divorce before the Family Court in August, 2008. In these circumstances it is urged that the allegations are raised vexatiously and as a counter blast against the prayer for divorce raised by the first accused. 6. It is true that the complaint was filed long after separate residence commenced and even after the application for divorce was allegedly filed. It is also true that no prior allegation has been raised before any authority till the complaint was filed and F.I.R. was registered. But these circumstances, according to me, are not sufficient to justify the invocation of the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is common knowledge that a young wife does not rush to the police station or the Magistrate immediately after the conduct which is culpable under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against her. Often she waits for the other side to make his move and only thereafter she seeks legal redress. I take note of this circumstance only to conclude that the mere fact that a prompt Crl.M.C.No. 3682 of 2008 4 complaint was not made and that a complaint was made only after the husband chose to file an application for divorce, are not circumstances by themselves sufficient to indicate malafide intention on the part of the defacto complainant. 7. The learned Magistrate has referred the complaint to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It may have been better for him to himself conduct an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. But the choice made by the Magistrate to refer the compliant to the police under Section 156(3) cannot certainly be reckoned as such a vice which warrants the invocation of the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. I need not assume that a proper investigation shall not be conducted. The Investigating Officer must certainly conduct a proper investigation to bring out truth and to do justice to the parties. I need only observe that the Investigating Officer must take note of all the circumstances and must ensure that the registration of the crime does not result in needless hardship, embarrassment or inconvenience to the petitioners concerned. Only if convinced by the materials collected Crl.M.C.No. 3682 of 2008 5 that the petitioners have committed the offence alleged against them, need further steps be taken against them. 9. With the above observations this Crl.M.C. is dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm