IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3653 of 2011(F) -------------------------------------- [CC.NO.113/2005 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I,KOYILANDY] .................... PETITIONERS/A3 & A4: --------------------------------- 1. REMA @ RAMANI, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O.ANANDAN, DOOR NO.22, MANORAYANA PALAYA, SEETHAPPA LAYOUT, R.T.NAGAR POST, BANGALORE. 2. BHANU.K., W/O.MOHAN KUMAR, AGED 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT SECTOR-2, ROOM NO.124, KOPARKKAINE, NAVI MUMBAI. BY ADV. SRI.A.V.M.SALAHUDDEEN. RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. 2. SHAREENA, D/O.RAGHAVAN, AGED 37 YEARS, ROOM NO.2, OLD POLICE QUARTERS, QUILANDY, PIN - 673 305. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAMESH VIJAYAN. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.M.C. NO. 3653/2011-F: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:- ANNEXURE A1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 6/5/2008 IN CC.113/05. ANNEXURE A2: THE TURE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA OF FIRST PETITIONER. ANNEXURE A3: TRUE COPY OF THE PAN CARD ISSUED FROTM THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT MUMBAI TO THE SECOND PETITIONER. ANNEXURE A4: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CC 113/2005 DTD.17/5/04. ANNEXURE A5: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 10/1/2005 ANNEXURE A6: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CC 282/2008 DT.13/5/04. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Prv. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.3653 of 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of November 2011 O R D E R Petitioners are the 3rd and 4th accused in C.C.No.113/2005 of J.F.C.M., Koyilandy. There were altogether five accused in that case. Others faced trial and they were acquitted by the learned Magistrate. The case against these petitioners were split up and re-filed as C.C.No.282/2008. During the trial, the 2nd accused, mother of the first accused expired and so charge against her stood abated. These petitioners (A3 and A4) are the sisters of the first accused. They were married and were permanently residing at Bangalore and Mumbai and so they had nothing to do with the marital relationship between the de facto complainant and the first accused. The charge sheet was laid against these petitioners also alleging offences punishable under Secs.498A and 406 r/w 34 IPC. After trial, other accused were acquitted by the learned Magistrate. Crl.M.C. No.3653 of 2011 -: 2 :- 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that on going through the judgment of the court below (Annexure I), it can be found that the evidence given by the complainant was totally disbelieved by the learned Magistrate and that so many other circumstances were also pointed out to disbelieve the prosecution case. It is also pointed out that this complaint was filed by PW1, the complainant after the husband (A1) filed petition for divorce. She then filed a petition before the Family court for return of gold ornaments. That petition was dismissed but the petition for divorce filed by the husband, raising allegation of cruelty against wife, was allowed. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the offence under Sec.406 cannot lie at all. Regarding Sec.498A, the circumstances pointed out were also rightly taken note of by the learned Magistrate. 3. Copy of the deposition of PW1 has also been made available to me for perusal. On going through the Crl.M.C. No.3653 of 2011 -: 3 :- deposition, it is seen that PW1 therein has admitted that these petitioners were permanently residing at Bangalore and Mumbai and so there was no possibility for those two persons to interfere with the marital life of complainant and the first accused. There was no possibility for them to take away the gold ornaments or money belonging to PW1. In these circumstances, I find that putting these petitioners to trial would be a sheer exercise in futility. For the ends of justice, I find that the proceeding in C.C.No.282/2008 on the file of J.F.C.M., Koyilandy is to be quashed. Hence, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. The proceedings against these petitioners in C.C.No.282/2008 is quashed. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt