IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4454 of 2008() ------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.811/2008 OF PANDALAM POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------- 1. VARGHESE ABRAHAM, S/O.ABRAHAM VARGHESE, PEZHUNIKKUNATHIL MALAYIL CHARIVUPARAMBIL, PUTHEN VEEDU, KARITHOTTA P.O., MEZHUVELI VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. SARAMMA ABRAHAM, W/O.ABRAHAM, PEZHUNIKKUNATHIL MALAYIL CHARIVUPARAMBIL, PUTHEN VEEDU, KARITHOTTA P.O., MEZHUVELI VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS & DFACT COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANDALAM POLICE STATION. 3. SHERLY C.MATHEW, W/O.VARGHESE ABRAHAM, CHURACKATTUMANNIL HOUSE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB FOR R1 & R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.4454 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of November, 2008 ORDER Petitioners are husband and mother in law of a married woman, who complained of matrimonial cruelty of the culpable variety punishable under Section 498 A I.P.C. Crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners have not sought anticipatory bail nor have they appeared before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate. They have chosen to come before this Court with this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C with a prayer to invoke such extraordinary inherent jurisdiction to quash the F.I.R registered against them. 2. What is the reason ? It is attempted to contend that the allegations do not constitute matrimonial cruelty of the culpable variety punishable under Section 498 A I.P.C. Less said about this plea, the better. I shall not embark on a detailed discussion on the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that I am not at all persuaded to agree that there is any justification to quash the F.I.R and thwart an investigation which has already commenced. It cannot possibly be held that the alleged battering of the wife Crl.M.C. No.4454 of 2008 2 and taking away of her ornaments by use of force if true cannot amount to culpable conduct punishable under Section 498 A I.P.C. 3. Finally it is prayed that there may be a direction to the learned Magistrate to consider the bail application to be filed by the petitioners on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. The petitioners have not chosen to seek anticipatory bail. They must now surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. Sufficient general directions have already been issued in Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003 (1) KLT 339] obliging courts to expeditiously consider the applications for regular bail filed by accused persons who surrender before them. No special or specific directions appears to be necessary. Every court must comply with the directions in Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003 (1) KLT 339]. It is not necessary for this Court in every subsequent case to issue directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C to the Magistracy to follow the dictum in Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police . I have no reason to assume that the same shall not be done. If there be non Crl.M.C. No.4454 of 2008 3 compliance, the avenues of challenge/complaint are available for the petitioners. 4. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but with the above specific observations. 5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioners for production before the court below. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-