IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 13TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 248 of 2010() ------------------------ SC.579/2009 of ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA CRIME NO.941/08 OF KODUNGALLUR POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER: --------------- KALESAN, S/O.VALIPARAMBIL SUBRAMANIAN, ANAPUZHA P.O., METHALA VILLAGE, METHALA DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.JAGAN GEORGE SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD SRI.P.G.PRAMOD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KODUNGALLUR POLICE STATION (F.I.R NO.941/2008, SC. 579/2009 PENDING BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA) THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. VALSALA, AGED 44 YEARS, D/O.MARIKKAL KARIPPATHARA KRISHNANKUTTY KURUVILASSERY VILLAGE, KURUVILASSERY DESOM MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P A SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- Cr. MC No.248 of 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated 2nd February 2010 Order This is a petition filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to have all further proceedings in SC No.579/09 pending before the Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Irinjalakuda, quashed. 2. The petitioner is the first accused in SC No.579/09 pending before the Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Irinjalakuda, accused of having committed the offences punishable under Ss.406, 493 and 376 r/w S.34 IPC. The proceedings originated on a private complaint filed by the second respondent herein, which was referred by the learned Magistrate for investigation under S.156(3) Cr.P.C. When the final report was filed, the learned Magistrate felt that the offence was one exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions and therefore, committed the case to the Sessions Court and the case was renumbered as SC No.579/09. CR MC NO.248/10 2 3. The marriage between the petitioner and the second respondent was solemnized on 28.04.1996. It was the second marriage of both of them. The second respondent had filed MC No.259/98 before the Family Court, Thrissur for maintenance and the petitioner was directed by the Family Court to pay a sum of Rs.700/- per month as maintenance to the second respondent. The petitioner then initiated proceedings before the Family Court, Thrissur as OP No.475/02 under S.11 of the Hindu Marriage Act to have his marriage with the second respondent, declared as null and void. The basis of the said complaint was that the petitioner had come to know that the first marriage of the second respondent had not been dissolved and she had entered into an alliance with him while her earlier marriage was subsisting. That petition was allowed. There were several other litigations also between the parties, which are not very relevant for the present purpose. It is stated that the second respondent had earlier filed a complaint before the JFCM Court, Kodungallur against the petitioner of having committed the offence punishable under Ss.494 read with CR MC NO.248/10 3 S.109 IPC. The said complaint was taken on file as CC No.1063/04, which was later dismissed, finding that S.494 IPC cannot be attracted. The petitioner has produced copy of the said judgment as Annexure 8. The petitioner would say that the complaint, which led to the present proceedings is clear abuse of the process of this Court and the second respondent is not entitled to any relief in this petition. It is also pointed out by the petitioner that the fact remains that the earlier marriage of the second respondent has not been dissolved. According to the petitioner, he is being harassed by the second respondent. Whatever that be, the complaint, which was referred for investigation has resulted in lodging SC No.579/09 before the Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Irinjalakuda. Whether the offences are made out or not, is a question that should be decided by the said Court while considering the matter. If the petitioner has got a case that the offences alleged in the complaint before the Court below are not made out, he is at liberty to move the Court for a discharge. This petition is, therefore, disposed of, with the CR MC NO.248/10 4 observation that in case the petitioner moves a petition for discharge, pointing out the true facts, the Court below shall dispose of that petition in accordance with law untrammeled by any observation made by this Court in this Judgment, as expeditiously as possible. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta CR MC NO.248/10 5