IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2008 / 23RD ASWINA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3829 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.329/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, MANNARKAD .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1 & 2 ---------------------------- 1. ABDULSALIM, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. ABDULKHADER (LATE), C.A.K.HOUSE, DOOR NO.11, RANGASWAMY COLONY, RAJARATINAM NAGAR, SELVAPURAM, COIMBATORE - 26. 2. NABEESA, W/O.LATE ABDULKHADER (LATE) AGED 66 YEARS, -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE S.I. OF POLICE, MANNARKKAD POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3829 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of October 2008 O R D E R Petitioners are the husband and mother-in-law of the de facto complainant and they face indictment for the offence punishable under Section 498A read with 34 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations is that after the spouses got married on 30/5/1991, the husband and the mother-in-law were guilty of matrimonial cruelty of the culpable variety against the de facto complainant. The crime has been registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the de facto complainant before the learned Magistrate and referred to the police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. After completing the investigation, final report was filed before the learned Magistrate. Cognizance was accordingly taken. The first accused has already entered appearance and was enlarged on bail. The second accused/mother-in-law is yet to appear. 2. The petitioners at this stage have come to this court with the prayer that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to quash the proceedings. What is the reason? The Crl.M.C.No.3829/08 2 learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations are very improbable. Marriage took place in 1991. Three children, all minors - aged 16, 15 and 12 years now, are born in the wedlock. It is extremely artificial to assume that after more than one and a half decades of marriage , such cruelty could occur, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. I shall carefully avoid any opinion on merits lest it may adversely affect the interest of the parties. I am unable to agree that there are any circumstances justifying or warranting the invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners. This court cannot now come to a conclusion that there cannot ever be matrimonial cruelty after one and a half decades of married life and after three children are born in the wedlock. No other materials are placed before me. I find it impossible now with the available inputs and considering the nature of the jurisdiction that I am called upon to invoke and exercise to come to a conclusion that the allegations are totally false or are raised with any vexatious or ulterior motives. In short, I am not persuaded to agree that the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction deserves to be invoked. Crl.M.C.No.3829/08 3 4. In the result, this Crl.M.C is dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there may be a direction that the second petitioner's application for regular bail must be considered on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. It is further prayed that she, an old woman, may be exempted from personal appearance. It is for the second petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate and claim bail. Such application for regular bail must be considered in the light of the decision in Alice George vs.Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1)KLT 339] - on the date of surrender itself if sufficient prior notice is given to the Prosecutor in charge of the case. Unnecessary insistence need not be made ritualistically on the personal appearance of the accused persons and if proper applications are made for exemption, the same shall also be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.3829/08 4 Crl.M.C.No.3829/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008