IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2009 / 13TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 462 of 2009() ------------------------ CC.1717/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUNI BABY, KALIYIKKAL HOUSE, CHENGAMANADU P.O.KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL RESPONDENT(S): 1 ---------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,R EPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KRALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNDARA POLICE STATION. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER,MELILA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.462 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of February 2009 O R D E R The petitioner is the sister of an accused who faces prosecution under Section 498A I.P.C. Originally in the crime, the petitioner was also arrayed as an accused. Her brother, the husband of the de facto complainant, herself/the sister of the 1st accused and her mother were arrayed as accused in the crime originally. After investigation, final report has been filed only against the 1st accused. The petitioner and her mother have been dropped from the array of accused. Petitioner's brother has not entered appearance so far. Coercive processes have been issued against him. Steps under Sections 82 and 83 are also afoot, it is submitted. Petitioner's brother is still at large. The petitioner also does not know about the present whereabouts of her brother, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. What is the grievance of the petitioner? The only grievance legally to be taken note of is the grievance that notices addressed to the absconding 1st accused are affixed on the front Crl.M.C.No. 462/09 2 door of the house of the petitioner. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by this conduct. I do note that it is the case of the petitioner that her brother did not and does not stay along with her at that residence. But in the complaint filed, the address of the brother of the petitioner and her mother are shown to be that of the petitioner itself. It is hence that the police is affixing notices on the door of the petitioner. 3. The complainant had alleged that the 1st accused used to reside here. The 1st accused is not to be traced. The processes are therefore affixed on the address averred by the complainant. Even the petitioner is not able to tell the court that the 1st accused is residing elsewhere as his whereabouts are not known even according to the petitioner. But, according to the petitioner, he used to reside in a different address which address has been furnished by the petitioner to the court. 4. I find no reason for this court now to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Coercive steps have been taken against the brother of the petitioner. He can certainly appear before the learned Magistrate and complain that the attempted service of notice by Crl.M.C.No. 462/09 3 affixing notices on the front door of the petitioner is not justified and this is not the permanent address of the said accused. But as per the averments in the complaint, the 1st accused, that is the absconding accused, is shown to reside along with the petitioner at this house. If the petitioner has any grievance, she can appear before the learned Magistrate and explain the details. I am not persuaded to agree that the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction deserves to be invoked in the given situation. Without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to apprise the learned Magistrate of the correct last place of residence of the 1st accused, her brother, I am satisfied that this petition can be dismissed. If any such grievance is raised either by the sole accused or by the petitioner that notices for appearance affixed on the door of the petitioner's house is not satisfactory, the concerned Magistrate shall consider the same and take appropriate decision. No directions of this court does appear to be necessary. 5. This Crl.M.C is in these circumstances dismissed with the above observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Crl.M.C.No. 462/09 4 Crl.M.C.No. 462/09 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008