IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 20TH MARCH 2009 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 32 of 2007() ----------------------- CR.96/06 OF VARANDARAPPILLY POLICE STATION PETITIONER: 3RD ACCUSED ------------------------------- ARUNA MOHAN, AGED 53 YEARS, W/O. MOHANAN, 9/6, AYYAPPA NAGAR, MAIN ROAD, VIRUTHAMPAKKAM, CHENNAI. BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN RESPONDENT(S): STATE/COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SARASWATHY, D/O. PARUKUTTY AMMA, KIZHAKUMPURATH HOUSE, ATTAPPILLIKADAVU, NANDIPULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKKEN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.48/07 IN CRL.M.C.NO.32/07 //DISMISSED// 20.3.2009 SD/-M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI, J. ====================== CRL.M.C. NO. 32 of 2007 ======================= Dated this the 20th March 2009 ORDER The petitioner herein is the third accused in Crime No.96/2006 of Varandarappilly Police Station and this petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before this court with the prayer to quash Annexure-II F.I.R.registered on 21-4-2006 for the offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the petitioner and two other accused as revealed from the F.I.R.is that accused 1 to 3 together have ill-treated the de facto complainant mentally and physically by demanding more gold ornaments and dowry. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and for second respondent. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has read the statements of the de facto complainant, copy of which is CRMC. 32/2007 -2- annexed along with the F.I.R. According to the learned counsel, there are no allegations whatsoever against the petitioner herein which are sufficient enough for the offence under Section 498-A and that she has been implicated in the present case for the purpose of harassing her. Therefore, continuance of the proceedings against the petitioner is an abuse of process of court which is liable to be quashed, it is submitted. 4. The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that sufficient allegations are there in the F.I.S. to attract the offence under Section 498-A against the petitioner herein, who is the sister-in-law of the de facto complainant. After investigation, Annexure-II F.I.R.has been registered against the petitioner also for the offence under Section 498-A. 5. This petition is filed before this Court on 3-1-2007. On 4-1-2007, this Court has granted interim direction that the petitioner shall not be arrested and no action shall be taken against the petitioner until further orders. On verification by the Registry of this Court, it is informed that the case is now pending before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Irinjalakuda as C.C.No.41/2007 and the petitioner arrayed as second accused in CRMC. 32/2007 -3- that case is absconding. So the charge was framed against the first accused and the case is posted for evidence on 16-6-2009. Thus it is evident that the petitioner herein has not appeared before the concerned court and is absconding as per records. 6. The learned counsel for the second respondent has relied on a decision of this Court in Kunjupillai & Ors.v. Shylaja, 2000(2)K.L.J.187.The facts of that case is similar to the facts in this case. In the abovesaid decision, this Court has relied on the following decisions of the Apex Court. “In Usha Ahuja v. State of Haryana and Others (AIR 1999 S.C.3242), the Apex Court held as follows: 'It is now well-settled that the width of power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,in principle, is very expansive but in practice the power is exercised in exceptional cases. The inherent power of the Court is not an unrestricted power to make any order which the High Court desires to pass. The power is meant to be exercised to give effect to any order under Cr.P.C. or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice'. CRMC. 32/2007 -4- In another decision reported in Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi and others (A.I.R.1999 S.C. 1216) also the apex Court held as follows: 'It is not necessary that a complainant should verbatim reproduce in the body of his complaint all the ingredients of the offence he is alleging. Nor is it necessary that the complainant should state in so many words that the intention of the accused was dishonest or fraudulent. Splitting up of the definition into different component of the offence to make a meticulous scrutiny spelled out in the complaint, is not the need at this stage. If factual foundation for the offence has been laid in the complaint the Court should not hasten to quash criminal proceedings during investigation stage merely on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated with details. For quashing an FIR (a step which is permitted only in extremely rare cases)the information in the complaint must be so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence'. CRMC. 32/2007 -5- The apex court in the decision reported in State of Kerala v. O.C.Kuttan and others (JT 1999(1) S.C.486) held as follows: 'The power or quashing the criminal proceedings should be exercised very sparingly with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases, that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegation made in the F.I.R.or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice. It is too well settled that the first information report is only an initiation to move the machinery and to investigate into a cognizable offence and,therefore, while exercising the power and deciding whether the investigation itself should be quashed, utmost care should be taken by the court and at that stage it is not possible for the court to shift the materials or to weigh the material and then come to the conclusion one way or the other”. CRMC. 32/2007 -6- 7. The dictum laid down in the above mentioned decisions are very well applicable to the facts of this case. In the present case, it is found by the learned Magistrate that prima facie case is made out even against the petitioner herein, took cognizance of the offence under Section 498-A against the petitioner also and C.C.No.41/207 is pending before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Irinjalakuda. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also the allegations in the petition, I find that no sufficient ground is there to interfere with the matter by exercising the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In the result, the Crl.M.C.is dismissed. M.C. HARI RANI JUDGE ks.