IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2011 / 23RD POUSHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 103 of 2011() ------------------------ CC.774/2010 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ 1. SIDDIQUE,KANIYOOR HOUSE,NALA,NEAR JUMA- MASJID,JARIGEBAIL,P.O.BELTHANGADY,KARNATAKA. 2. MARIYAMMA,KANIYOOR HOUSE,NALA, NEAR JUMA-MASJID,JARIGEBAIL,P.O.BELTHANGADY, KARNATAKA. 3. DAINABA,KANIYOOR HOUSE,NALA,NEAR JUMA- MASJID,JARIGEBAIL,P.O.BELTHANGADY,KARNATAKA. 4. ASMA,KANIYOOR HOUSE,NALA,NEAR JUMA- MASJID,JARIGEBAIL,P.O.BELTHANGADY,KARNATAKA. BY ADVS. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER, SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA, SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH, SMT.C.J.AJITHA. RESPONDENT(S): STATE: --------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-31. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.103 of 211 ==================================== Dated this the 13th day of January, 2011 O R D E R Petitioners are accused in C.C. No.774 of 2010 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasargod for offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. De facto complainant is the wife of petitioner No.1 and according to her, petitioners subjected her to cruelty, mentally and physically demanding dowry. Petitioners and de facto complainant have referred to the incidents that occurred on the various dates. It is stated that at the time of marriage on 13.07.2000 she was given 60 sovereigns of gold and Rs.75,000/- but petitioners demanded more and to coerce her to get that, she was subjected to cruelty, physically and mentally. While so on 22.07.2010 petitioner Nos.2 to 4 came to her paternal home (where she was staying then) and subjected her to cruelty, physically and mentally demanding more dowry. According to the petitioners allegations are false and from 15.12.2003 onwards de facto complainant is staying away from petitioner No.1 and since then petitioners have no contact with the de facto complainant. First petitioner is employed in gulf. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are residing at CRL.M.C.No.103 of 20110 -: 2 :- Belthangadi. It is contended by learned counsel that allegations are not correct and no offence is made out. 2. I have gone through Annexure-II final report and find that specific allegations are made against petitioner No.1. So far petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are concerned there is reference to the alleged incident on 22.07.2010 which also investigation revealed it was in connection with demand for more dowry. Though in the complaint, offences under Secs.324 and 406 of the IPC were also incorporated those Sections were deleted while submitting final report for offence under Sec.498A of the Code. Question whether allegations are true or not is a matter which the trial court has to decide. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I do not find to reason to interfere under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Resultantly, Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv