IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2008 / 10TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2458 of 2008() ------------------------- PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- SHANAVAS.A.M, AGED 27, S/O.ABDULLAE MUHAMMED KALLANGADI, KUBHA PALACE, NELKALA, KASARAGOD, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE - REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 2458 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of July, 2008 ORDER The petitioner is an accused in a crime registered for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.498A of the IPC. The crime has been registered on the basis of a complaint filed by his wife against himself and his mother. The complaint was referred to the police by the learned Magistrate under Sec. 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Investigation is in progress. 2. According to the petitioner, the crime registered against him is liable to be quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. He prays that the complaint has been filed with the transparent intention of vexing and harassing the petitioner and his mother. This is a clear case of abuse of the benevolent provision under Sec.498A of the IPC. Crl.M.C. No. 2458 of 2008 -: 2 :- 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, first of all, contends that the allegations raised are false. Whether the allegations raised are false or not cannot obviously be decided at this stage by this Court. Investigation will reveal whether the allegations are true or false. On the assertion of one of the contestants against whom allegations of cruelty are raised that the allegations are false, this Court cannot stultify the legal and lawful investigation which has already commenced. That ground is insufficient to resort to the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. 4. It is next contended that the complaint is a counter blast of Annexure-AII notice issued by the learned counsel for the petitioner demanding restitution of conjugal rights. The timing of the complaint must suggest to the court that the respondent/ complainant is indulging in an attempt to vex and harass the petitioner and his mother, contends the learned counsel. The mere fact that the allegations of matrimonial cruelty have been raised only after the husband made the first move by issuing a notice of demand cannot reasonably lead a prudent mind to the inference that the allegations are raised without any bona fide and vexatiously. It is common knowledge that many a wife suffering cruelty in silence may consider such a notice issued by the husband as the last straw on the camel's back and may take Crl.M.C. No. 2458 of 2008 -: 3 :- courage to initiate proceedings against the husband. The mere fact that the complaint was raised only after the husband made the first move by issuing a notice of demand through the counsel cannot also justify the invocation of the powers under sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. in the facts and circumstances of this case. 5. Thirdly and lastly the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations, even if accepted, do not constitute any offence punishable under Sec.498A of the IPC. 6. I shall carefully avoid any detailed discussions on merits about the acceptability of the allegations. Suffice it to say that I am unable to agree that sufficient allegations have not been raised which even if accepted would attract the offence punishable under Sec.498A of the IPC. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner finally submits that there may be a direction that the petitioner and his mother are not harassed by the police. I do not think that the police is entitled to harass any person merely because crime has been registered. No directions from this Court are necessary to avoid or abate such harassment. It is for the petitioner to approach the court concerned to seek bail or anticipatory bail as he may choose. No further or specific directions appear to be necessary. Needless to say, if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail after giving Crl.M.C. No. 2458 of 2008 -: 4 :- sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate shall consider such application for bail on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. Sufficient general directions on this aspect have already been issued in the decision reported in Alice George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339). 8. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed with the above observations. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge