IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2009 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1422 of 2008() ----------------------------------- CRIME NO.424/2007 OF THRISSUR WEST POLICE STATION. C.C. NO.158/08 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-II, THRISSUR .......... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 2 AND 3 ------------------------- 1. NARAYANAN UNNI MOOSAD, S/O.VASUDEVAN MOOSAD, AGED 64 YEARS, PADATH ILLAM, PRASANTHI NAGAR, AYYANTHOL, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. PARVATHY, W/O.NARAYANAN UNNI MOOSAD, AGED 62 YEARS, PADATH ILLAM, PRASANTHI NAGAR, AYYANTHOL, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS --------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WEST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 3. SMT.VIDHYA, D/O.V.K.NEELAKANDAN, 'ROHINI', KANATTUKARA, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.AMJAD ALI BY ADV. MR.K.S.RAJESH FOR R3 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- CRL.M.C.No. 1422 OF 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of March, 2009 O R D E R This is a petition filed by accused Nos. 2 and 3 to quash the proceedings in C.C. 158/2008 so far as it relates to them. This unfortunate litigation is between the wife on one side and husband and in-laws of the wife on the other side. The young couple got married on 10.02.2007 and thereafter within few months the matrimonial dispute started and we find the 1st complaint filed in the early process of time as O.P. 863/2007. It is filed on 14th June 2007 with a prayer to the respondent husband to return 60 sovereigns of gold ornaments worth Rs. 4,00,000/-. 2. I have perused the avernments in the petition and para 5 details about the cruelty that she has to face from her husband and she had described him as a drunkard. There is no avernments against the present petitioners who are father-in law and mother-in-law. Thereafter we find the next case as O.P. 864/2007 which is a petition for divorce filed by the wife against the husband on the ground of cruelty. There also the involvement or encouragement given by the parents of the Crl.M.C. 1422/2008 -2- husband does not find and there is no allegations against them. Then comes the F.I. Statement. F.I. Statement was given by the defacto complainant on 21.10.2007 and there it is only averred that the husband used to come drunk everyday and used to treat her with cruelty both physically and mentally and that she had been deprived of her ornaments and thereby he has committed the offences under Section 498 A of the IPC. Then an application was filed by the Sub Inspector of Police who conducted the investigation to open the locker which is in the name of the father-in-law. I am informed that nothing turned out from that. Then anticipating some difficulty the petitioners herein moves for anticipatory bail in the Sessions Court, Trichur and that court found that petitioners 2 and 3 are not made as accused so far as there are no allegations against the petitioners 2 and 3 and therefore the petition filed by the petitioner therein for anticipatory bail was held to be not maintainable. Now comes a statement given by the wife on 16.11.2007 on further interrogation regarding the case. In that statement allegation is made to the effect that the mother-in-law has stated that the wife has cheated the husband and if she goes away her son will Crl.M.C. 1422/2008 -3- get a better bride and more dowry. Now the learned counsel for the respondent would contend in the light of the statement, the court cannot quash the proceedings under 482 of the Crl.P.C because there is something to connect the accused with the crime. At the outset, I would like to state the very scope of investigation is mainly based on the complaint by the wife under Section 498 A. In that complaint it is filed that after filing an application for return of ornaments and for divorce there is not even a solitary avernment whereby she wanted to implicate her father-in-law and mother-in-law in the alleged commission of offence and for any misappropriation. When a lady files an application for divorce on the ground of cruelty and if there had been physical and mental cruelty, it will be the first thing that will be averred in petition for divorce. Except making allegations of drunkness, cruelty etc. on the husband, absolutely there is nothing pleaded against these two persons. 3. Now while regarding a statement of this nature whether a prosecution has to continue against these people has to be looked into in the backdrop of the materials available till that date. If these type of questioning and interrogation are Crl.M.C. 1422/2008 -4- permitted to continue, so many proceedings can come at any stage. Then there will not be any finality and the persons will unnecessarily be forced to face a trial on that basis. Under Section 482 of the Crl.P.C there is a specific object especially to secure the ends of justice. Here from the materials available there cannot be any doubt in the mind that the subsequent statement given on 16.11.2007 is only with an intention to drag the in-laws also in a case wherein wife did not have any sort of complaints or grievance against them inspite of initiating three proceedings. I feel interest of justice requires that these persons shall not be proceeded for criminal prosecution. Therefore I quash all criminal proceedings against these two persons making it clear that the criminal prosecution can continue against the husband against whom prima facie materials are available. The Crl.M.C is allowed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE vkm