IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 14TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 361 of 2010() ------------------------ CC.607/2009 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- MR.FAIROZ HUSSAIN, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.LATE KAZLANDAR HUSSAIN, HOUSE NO.26/1, 1ST CROSS HULIAR ROAD, ARSIKARA, HASSAN DISTRICT,. PIN. 573 103, KARNATAKA STATE (WITHIN JURISDICTION OF KUMBLA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT) BY ADV. MR.THYPARAMBIL THOMAS THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KUMBLA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.BHAVADASAN, J. --------------------------- Crl.M.C No.361 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February 2010 ----------------------------------------------------- ORDER This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking to have all further proceedings in C.C No.607/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasargod which relates to Crime No.359/2008 of the Kumbala Police Station, Kasargod quashed. 2. Petitioner is an accused in C.C No.607/2009 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasargod for having committed offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 323 of IPC. Petitioner had married Dilshad Bhanu on 08/04/2007 as per custom prevailing in their community and were residing together. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has been harassing, torturing and treating his wife cruely demanding more dowry. Private complaint was filed by the defacto-complainant which is produced as Annexure A1. In the light of the investigation, final report was filed. Cognizance was taken by the court. Petitioner could not respond to the summons as he was working outside Kerala, in fact at Bangalore. Therefore Crl.M.C No.361 OF 2010 Page numbers subsequent proceedings were taken and proceedings under Section 82 and 83 were resorted to. Even though the petitioner moved this court for anticipatory bail, that was dismissed directing the petitioner to surrender before the court below. The only prayer made at the time of hearing of this petition is that in case the petitioner surrenders before the court below and moves an application for bail, that would be considered on the very same day itself. 3. In the result, this petition is disposed of directing the court below to consider the bail application to be filed by the petitioner in case of his surrender before the court below on the day which the bail application is filed, after serving notice to the learned Public Prosecutor. Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv