IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3259 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.677/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AMABALAPUZHA .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------- IVAN RATHINAM, S/O.RATHINAM PILLAI ARASARKADAVIL, VADAKKAL PO., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------------------------------------------------- 1. ASHA LAWRENCE , D/O.M.M.LAWRENCE 702, GA RDEN GATE APARTMENTS, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI-20. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) FOR R1 SRI.M.SUNILKUMAR FOR R1 R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 3259 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of November, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 323 and 506(i) I.P.C. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a private complaint filed by the respondent/complainant. The petitioner is an official of the Armed Police of the rank of Dy.S.P. 2. The crux of the allegations is that the complainant and the petitioner were known to each other for a long time and there was a proposal for their marriage. That did not take place. Both of them got married to others. Subsequently the complainant separated from her husband and started illicit relationship with the petitioner herein. A child was allegedly born in such relationship. The child had some serious ailment. Thereafter the petitioner allegedly started cruel and violent behaviour against the complainant. She lodged a private complaint, on the basis of which cognizance was taken. The learned counsel for the Crl.M.C.No. 3259 of 2008 2 petitioner submits that the cognizance taken is not justified and the petitioner is entitled to get the proceedings initiated against him quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. What is the ground? The learned counsel for the petitioner first of all contended that no proper enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. appears to have been conducted at all. Report of the learned Magistrate was called for. It is now evident that an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. was conducted by the learned Magistrate. That ground of challenge is hence not available to the petitioner. 4. Secondly it is contended that even if the entire allegations were accepted, no allegation under Section 506(i) I.P.C. is revealed and this would lead to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to have the cognizance taken against him quashed on the ground of limitation. 5. I have been taken through the relevant materials. I am unable to agree that at the present stage and with the available material a safe conclusion can be reached that the allegations do not constitute an offence under Section 506(i) I.P.C. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of jurisdiction of this Court under Section Crl.M.C.No. 3259 of 2008 3 482 Cr.P.C. I take particular note of the allegations raised in paragraph 5 of the complaint. I am not intending to express any final or authentic opinion about the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data relied on. Suffice it to say that it appears to be impossible now to come to a conclusion that the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can or deserves to be invoked. 6. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed. I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to raise all appropriate and relevant contentions before the learned Magistrate at the appropriate stages. 7. Counsel for the petitioner submits that great prejudice, hardship and loss would result if the personal presence of the petitioner were insisted by the learned Magistrate on all dates of posting. I find no reason why such ritualistic insistence on personal presence should be made by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner can certainly apply for exemption from personal appearance when the progress of the case does not demand his presence. Such application must be considered by Crl.M.C.No. 3259 of 2008 4 the learned Magistrate on merits and in accordance with law. (R. BASANT) Judge tm R. BASANT, J. Crl.M.C.No. 3259 of 2008 5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 3259 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of August, 2008 O R D E R Heard. Admitted. Notice given and the learned Prosecutor appears for the second respondent. Issue notice to the first respondent by speed post ack. Due. Simultaneously given notice personally to the learned counsel for the first respondent, who is appearing in the court below and file a memo to that effect in 15 days. Call on 6.10.2008. 2. Call for a report from the learned Magistrate. Has a S.202 enquiry been conducted as amended u/s. 202 Cr.P.C. The report shall narrate in detail all the steps taken prior to the issue of process against the petitioner. Crl.M.A.4560 of 2008 There shall be an interim direction that the petitioner shall be permitted to appear through his counsel until further orders in C.C.677/08 pending before the JFMC, Ambalapuzha. Coercive processes issued against the petitioner shall not be executed till Crl.M.C.No. 3259 of 2008 6 6.10.08. (R. BASANT) tm Judge