IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2011 / 11TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 119 of 2011() ------------------------ CC.413/2008 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PALA .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- 1. PRINCE C.A., AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.AUGUSTINE, CHOKKATTY HOUSE, AIMCOMNPU, KADANADU P.O., PALA, VELLILAPPALLY VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM. 2. P.P.AUGUSTINE @ KUTTYACHEN, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, S/O.FRENCHU, CHOKKATTY HOUSE, AIMCOMNPU, KADANADU P.O., PALA, VELLILAPPALLY VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM. 3. ALEY @ PONNAMMA, AGED 69 YEARS, W/O.P.P.AUGUSTINE, CHOKKATTY HOUSE, AIMCOMNPU, KADANADU P.O., PALA, VELLILAPPALLY VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------------------------------------ 1. ROSHNI JOSEPH, AGED 27 YEARS, W/O.PRINCE C.A., VADAKKEDATH HOUSE, MANJALARUVI, KANNIMALA P.O., ERUMELI SOUTH VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN 686 507.. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.119 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of January, 2011. ORDER Petitioners are accused in C.C.No.413 of 2008 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pala facing trial for offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”). That case arose on a private complaint filed by respondent No.1 before the learned Magistrate, forwarded to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”) and the final report (Annexure-II) filed by the Police after investigation. Prosecution case is that petitioners subjected respondent No.1, wife of petitioner No.1 to physical and mental cruelty demanding more ornaments and money and thereby committed the offence. It is contended that allegations against petitioners do not attract offence under Section 498A of the IPC. At the time of hearing, learned counsel has confined his argument to the charge against petitioner No.3, mother-in-law of respondent No.1. Learned counsel contended that there is no specific allegation either in the final report, complaint or statement of respondent No.1 recorded by the Police under Section 161 of the Code. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala and another (2009(3) KLT Suppl.412) Crl.MC No.119/2011 2 and in particular, observations in paragraph 21 of the decision. Learned counsel pointed out that in the above circumstances, final report against petitioner No.3 is liable to be quashed. 2. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. 3. In the decision relied on by learned counsel ingredients to attract the offence under Section 498A of the IPC is highlighted. On the facts of that case the Supreme Court observed that on examination of the records including the FIR it is found that there was no allegation either in the FIR or charge sheet making out a prima facie case as narrated under explanation (a) of Section 498A of the IPC. There was no allegation that there was conduct on the part of appellant which would be amounting to cruelty or a cause to respondent No.2 to commit suicide or to cause any injury to her life. The ingredients of offence under Section 498A of the IPC having not been made out prima facie, contention of the appellant was accepted and charge against him was quashed. The question is whether to the facts of the present case the decision relied on could be applied. 4. I have gone through Annexure-II where, there is specific allegation against the parents of petitioner No.1(ie., petitioner Nos.2 and 3) also subjecting respondent No.1 to cruelty to coerce her to comply with their demand for more Crl.MC No.119/2011 3 ornaments and money. I have been taken through the statement of respondent No.1, the defacto complainant recorded under Section 161 of the Code where also, there is reference to the details of incident (though, so far as petitioner No.3 is concerned, no specific date of the alleged infliction of cruelty is mentioned). The argument of learned counsel is that when there is reference to the specific dates as against petitioner Nos.1 and 2, there is no such reference to petitioner No.3 specifying the date on which the alleged incident occurred. I am not persuaded to think that merely because specific dates of the alleged incident as against petitioner No.3 is not mentioned in the complaint, final report or the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code this Court is justified in quashing the proceeding against petitioner No.3 invoking power under Section 482 of the Code. On going through the statement of respondent No.1 under Section 161 of the Code I find that there is specific allegation against petitioner No.3 subjecting respondent No.1 to cruelty to coerce her to comply with their demand for getting more ornaments and money from her parents. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the decision relied on by the learned counsel cannot apply to the facts of the present case and the proceedings against any of the petitioners could not be quashed invoking power under Section 482 of the Code. Crl.MC No.119/2011 4 Resultantly this petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. I make it clear that the trial court shall not carried away by any of the observations contained in this order while deciding the case on merit. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks