IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2009 / 2ND ASHADHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1868 of 2009(A) -------------------------------------- (CRIME NO. 221/2009 KUNDARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM) .............. PETITIONER: ------------------- K.PRASANNAKUMAR, PUNNASSERIKALAM, ATTUVATHALA, NEDUMUDY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, WORKING AS CHIEF SECURITY OFFICER, S C T I M I S T, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.SANTHAN V.NAIR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNDARA POLICE STATION, KUNDARA, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. MOHANA KUMARI, SARAYU, KOTTAMKARA, CHANDANATHOPPU P.O.,KOLLAM -143. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. =================== Crl.M.C. No. 1868 of 2009-A =================== Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2009. O R D E R Petitioner is the husband of Anitha Chandran, daughter of the second respondent. Their relationship got strained. W.P.(C) No.7706/2009 was filed by the petitioner before this court for protection from police harassment. Annexure A notice was sent to the Sub Inspector and wife and mother-in- law of the petitioner to appear on 13-3-2009. F.I.Statement of second respondent was seen recoded on 12-3-2009 at 17.45 hrs. Based on which, Annexure B FIR was registered in Crime No.221/2009 for offences under Sections 452, 323 and 427 of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure B FIR and further investigation. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. The argument of the learned Counsel is that Annexure F counter affidavit filed by the daughter of the Crl.M.C.No.1868/2009-A -2- second respondent, for second respondent also, establish that F.I.statement given and the criminal case was registered only on account of the failure to pay the amount as demanded by the wife of the petitioner and due to the filing of writ O.P. It is pointed out that the very allegation in the Writ Petition was that police is harassing the petitioner to make payment as demanded by the wife. It was argued that as per Annexure F counter affidavit of the wife of the petitioner, she was beaten at the house at 7.00 AM on 9-3-2009 and thereafter she had gone to the house of her mother, the second respondent, and thereafter petitioner had beaten the second respondent and later the police came there and took the petitioner to Kundara Police Station and second respondent and daughter were examined by the doctor at the hospital and thereafter there was a settlement talk where-under it was agreed that petitioner would pay Rs.3,30,000/- to the wife on 12-3-2009 and when petitioner did not turn-up at the police station and pay the amount, police has registered Crime No.221/2009. It was argued that these facts establish that Annexure B FIR was lodged only to coerce the petitioner to pay the amount, Crl.M.C.No.1868/2009-A -3- which petitioner is not liable to pay and therefore the FIR is only an abuse of process of court, which is to be quashed. 4. On hearing the learned Counsel and going through the materials produced, I do not find that this is a case where the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this court is to be invoked to quash the FIR and thwart the investigation at threshold. The F.I. statement of second respondent shows that what was disclosed to the Sub Inspector was that at about 8 AM on 9-3-2009, daughter of second respondent came to her house after the incident which occurred at her matrimonial home and later at about 9.00 AM petitioner came to that house asking for the wife and thereafter allegedly petitioner attacked second respondent and committed the offences. Though the statement was recorded only on 12-3-2009 and Annexure B FIR was registered on 12-3-2009 after service of the notice in the Writ Petition, it cannot be said that allegations raised in the F.I. statement is not a case to be investigated. The question whether the case set up by the second respondent in the F.I. statement is correct nor not, in the light of the materials pointed out by the learned Counsel, Crl.M.C.No.1868/2009-A -4- is not to be decided at this stage. Though learned Counsel argued that there was delay in lodging the F.I.statement and the delay stated in Annexure F counter affidavit of the wife and what is stated in Annexure B FIR are different for the reason of delay in lodging the F.I. statement or for the insufficiency of the cause for the delay, F.I. statement cannot be quashed. The question whether there was an incident as alleged in the F.I. statement and if so whether petitioner committed the offences are all matters to be investigated. It cannot be said that the allegations raised by second respondent based on which Annexure B FIR was registered if correct, is not to be investigated. While investigating the case, facts pointed out by the petitioner in this petition are also to be considered. 5. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE dkr