IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2008 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4905 of 2008() ------------------------- CRIME NO. 248/06 OF NJARAKKAL POLICE STATION C.C.963/08 OF J.F.M.C., KOCHI PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: -------------------------------- 1. ANIL KUMAR K.K., S/O. KUTTPPAN, KAIPAMALA HOUSE, CHATHANTHARA, MUKKOTTUTHARA, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. AJITH KUMAR K.K., DO. DO 3. USHA BHAI K.K., D/O. DO. DO. 4. JANAKI, W/O. KUTTAPPAN, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.BIJI MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. PRASEETHA, D/O. KUTTAPPAN, MANNARATHARA NAYARAMBALAM, KOCHI. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 4905 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of December, 2008 O R D E R The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution under Section 498A I.P.C. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of the final report submitted by the police after due investigation. Final report has been filed. Charges have been framed against the petitioners. It is conceded at the Bar that the matter stands posted for trial to 18.12.08 and thereafter to 19.12.08 and 23.12.2008. 2. At this juncture the petitioners have come before this Court with a prayer that the prosecution initiated against them may be quashed invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. There is an alternative request made that there may be a direction not to commence the trial as the connected proceedings are pending before the Family Court and an attempt is being made by the Family Court to conciliate and settle the outstanding disputes between the parties. Crl.M.C.No. 4905 of 2008 2 3. Cognizance has already been taken. Charges have already been framed. The order framing charges was not challenged. The matter stands posted for trial to 18.12.2008. I am certainly not persuaded to agree that this is a fit case where the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can, need or deserves to be invoked at this juncture. No explanation is offered as to why the petitioners did not think it necessary to come to this Court earlier to challenge the cognizance taken or the order framing charges. Suffice it to say that I am not satisfied that there is any justification in the prayer to quash the proceedings. 4. I take note of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that chances of a harmonious settlement of the matrimonial disputes would be affected if trial in the case is commenced even before conciliation before the Family Court is completed. The petitioner must have made that request before the learned Magistrate before summons was issued to the witnesses. At this juncture I am not persuaded to agree that any directions are necessary on that aspect also. Crl.M.C.No. 4905 of 2008 3 5. This Crl.M.C. is hence dismissed. I may hasten to observe that it shall be open to the petitioners to request the learned Magistrate for an adjournment of the trial to ensure that the commencement of the trial does not mar the possibility of a harmonious conciliation/ settlement before the Family Court. Such request must be considered by the learned Magistrate and appropriate decision taken after ascertaining the response of the victim/defacto complainant. (R. BASANT) Judge tm