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. 4330 of 2008() ------------------------- CRIME NO.668/08 OF THAMARASSERY POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SUBAIDA, W/O.BASHEER, AGED 42 YEARS PUTHENPADY AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK,KOZHIKODE DIST. 2. MUHAMMED, S/O.MOIDEEN, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, PORA VEEDU, VAZHAKANDI PLACE PUTHENPADY AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK,KOZHIKODE DIST. 3. SALIM, S/O.MOIDEEN, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS ARORMAL PLACE, KOZHIKODE TALUK,KOZHIKODE DIST. 4. NAZAR, S/O.MOIDEEN, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS PORA VEEDU, VAZHATHOTTATHIL PLACE PUTHENPADY AMSOM,DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK,KOZHIKODE DIST. 5. AZEEZ, S/O.MOIDEEN, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS PORA VEEDU,VAZHATHOTTATHIL PLACE PUTHENPADY AMSOM,DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK,KOZHIKODE DIST. BY ADV. SRI.LUIZ GODWIN D'COUTH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. RAZEENA, W/O.ZIYAD, KALLELLY VEEDU PUTHENPADY ,AMSOM, DESOM, KARIKULAM PLACE KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DIST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB 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.4330 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of November 2008 O R D E R Petitioners face allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable inter alia under Section 498A I.P.C. Crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. 2. The petitioners are the mother-in-law of the de facto complainant and the brothers of the mother-in-law. It is interesting to note that the husband of the de facto complainant has not been arrayed as an accused. The de facto complainant and her husband appear to have very cordial relationship and there is no allegation whatsoever raised by the de facto complainant against her husband. The allegation is only against the mother-in-law and brothers of the mother-in-law. 3. According to the petitioners, the allegations are totally false and are engineered by the husband of the first petitioner (that is the mother-in-law in this case). He has, during the currency of his marriage with the first petitioner/accused herein, married again. He is residing with his second wife. The first petitioner has filed a complaint and on that complaint, a crime has been registered as crime No.558/08 for offences punishable inter alia under Section 498A I.P.C. In that case, Crl.M.C.No.4330/08 2 investigation is complete and final report has already been filed. 4. At this juncture, solely with the intention of retaliating against the first petitioner and her brothers (the other petitioners), the present false allegations have been raised. As a matter of fact, according to the first petitioner/accused, her son and daughter-in-law are not residing with her. They reside in an entirely different house. As the first petitioner has initiated proceedings against her husband, her husband has prevailed upon the son of the first petitioner to make false allegations against the first petitioner through his daughter-in-law. No proper investigation has been conducted at all. A careful consideration of the allegations raised in crime No.668/08 and the other facts of the case must have convincingly revealed to the investigating officer that the allegations raised are false and are being raised solely at the instance of the husband of the first petitioner who has prevailed upon his son and daughter-in-law to stake false allegations against the petitioners. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the crime registered may be quashed as mala fide and actuated by oblique motives. At any rate, appropriate directions may at least be issued to ensure that a proper investigation is conducted in the matter. 5. I shall not delve into the disputed questions of facts; Crl.M.C.No.4330/08 3 but suffice it to say that at the directions of this court, the case diary in both crimes i.e. crime No.558/08 in which final report has already been filed and crime No.668/08 have been placed before me. The impression appears to be irresistible that no proper investigation is being conducted into crime No.668/08. In the nature of the allegations raised by the de facto complainant and the contentions raised by the petitioners herein, it must certainly be investigated as to whether, at the relevant time, the de facto complainant was residing along with the first petitioner. Petitioners assert that they are residing in different houses and are not residing together at all to justify the allegations of cruelty while they were residing together. It is further submitted that accused 2 to 5 have nothing to do with the de facto complainant and they are admittedly not residing in the house where the first petitioner resides. I find from the records that no attempt is made to ascertain whether the parties were residing in the same house at the relevant time. It is also of crucial relevance to note that while the very specific case is that the daughter of the first petitioner (sister-in-law of the de facto complainant) is also residing with the first petitioner in her house, that daughter has not even been questioned so far though the crime is seen registered as early as on 16/9/2008. Crl.M.C.No.4330/08 4 6. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that though sufficient groundss have not been made out to justify quashing of F.I.R at this stage, it deserves to be directed that the investigation in crime No.668/08 must be conducted by a senior police official to be specified by the Superintendent of Police, Kozhikode Rural. He shall ensure that the investigation into crime No.668/08 is conducted by a senior police official not below the rank of a Dy.S.P. Necessary orders in this regard shall be passed in this matter within a period of three weeks from this day. Compliance shall be reported to this court. A copy of the order passed by the Superintendent of Police shall be forwarded to the learned counsel for the petitioner herein also. Such officer must conduct a detailed and exhaustive investigation specifically adverting to the grievances raised by the petitioners. 7. This petition is allowed to the above extent. 8. Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Crl.M.C.No.4330/08 5 Crl.M.C.No.4330/08 6 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008