IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3540 of 2009() ------------------------------------- CRIME NO.661/2009 OF ATTINGAL POLICE STATION. .................. PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED ---------------------------------------- BEENA V.S., AGED 34 YEARS, W/O.SHAJI. T.P., RESIDING AT SOUPARNIKA, AVANAVANCHERRY, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. BY ADV. MR.J.JAYAKUMAR, MR.S.JIJI, MR.N.M.JAMES. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ATTINGAL POLICE STATION, ATTINGAL, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. * ADDL. R2 IMPLEADED ADDL. R2: PREETHA, AGED 27YEARS, D/O.PRAKASAN, VALIKONAM, VEYILOOR VILLAGE, ATTINGAL. * ADDL. R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 12/11/2009 IN CRL.MA.6134/2009. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.K.S. SIVAKUMAR R2 BY ADV. MR.G.P.SHINOD , MR.RAM MOHAN.G. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.3540 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 15th February 2010 O R D E R Petitioner is the third accused in crime No.661/2009 of Attingal police station registered under Annexure-A9 FIR, for the offence under Section 498 A of Indian Penal Code based on Annexure-A8 complaint filed by second respondent before Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Attingal and sent for investigation under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A9 FIR as against the petitioner contending that petitioner, the sister of the husband of second respondent complainant, was married even before second respondent was Crmc 3540/09 2 married by the brother of the petitioner and she has been living with her husband and the allegation against the petitioner in Annexure-A8 complaint is false. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that based on the allegations raised by the second respondent police has registered a case earlier and in that case petitioner was not an accused and the petition for anticipatory bail filed by the accused therein was dismissed recording the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that there is no intention to arrest the accused and then Annexure-A8 Crmc 3540/09 3 complaint was filed before the Magistrate which was sent for investigation and as there is no specific allegation against the petitioner in Annexure-A8 complaint, continuation of the investigation as against the petitioner is only an abuse of process of the court and hence the proceedings as against him is to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that Annexure-A8 complaint contains necessary allegations constituting the offence as against the petitioner and in such circumstances, it is not for this court to terminate the proceedings at this stage. 5. When petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure Crmc 3540/09 4 to quash the FIR what is to be considered is whether allegations in the complaint and the FIR if accepted as correct would reveal the ingredients of an offence against the petitioner. If the allegations do not constitute an offence, this court has to quash the proceedings as against the petitioner. But Annexure-A8 complaint does contain the necessary allegations constituting the ingredients of an offence under Section 498 A as against the petitioner. True, petitioner has a case that she has not been residing along with other accused and did not commit any offence as alleged. It is a matter for the police to investigate. But when the complaint discloses the ingredients of the offence as against the petitioner, it Crmc 3540/09 5 cannot be quashed as sought for. Petition is dismissed. Investigating officer is directed to conduct proper investigation and also consider the submission of the petitioner that she has been living with her husband away from other accused. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.