IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2009 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1393 of 2006() ------------------------- OP(GW).487/2005 of FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM CRIME NO.699/04 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED: -------------------------- ALI HASSAN, AGED 57, (RETIRED A.E.O), S/O.MOHAMMED MUSTHAFA, RAWTHAR, RESIDING AT M.M.HOUSE, EDATHARA, KALANGOOR, PATHANAPURAM VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------ 1. ANITHA, AGED 4O, W/O.ALI HASSAN, HOUSE NO.83/A JAWAHAR NAGAR, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, PATTATHANAM CHERRY. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.M.KAMMAPPU FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.2442/06 IN CRL.M.C.NO.1393/06 //DISMISSED// 23.3.09 SD/-M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE M.C.HARI RANI, J. ----------------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.No.1393 OF 2006 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF MARCH, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner herein is the accused in C.C.No.273/04 pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam, for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash Annexure A3 charge sheet filed against him in Crime No.699/04 of Kollam East Police Station registered at the instance of the first respondent herein as the defacto complainant, who is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner herein. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and for the first respondent. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged and it is only a cooked up story. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the first respondent that there is no merit in this petition, which is liable to be dismissed and that there is no sufficient ground to invoke CRL.M.C.No.1393/06 -2- the power of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., which can be exercised only sparingly, to meet the ends of justice. The learned counsel has relied on the decision reported in Renu Kumari v. Sanjay Kumar (2009(1) SCC (Crl.)426 ) , wherein it is held that allegation of mala fides against informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceedings initiated under Section 498A by invoking the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 5. It is the admitted case that the petitioner and the first respondent married on 1.3.1992 and they have two minor daughters and that marital relationship is still subsisting. The relationship between the petitioner and the first respondent was strained and the first respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner alleging offence under Section 498A. Annexure A3 charge sheet is filed on 10.12.2004 in Crime No.699/04 before Kollam East Police Station. Anenxure A3 charge sheet was laid before the Court of C.J.M., Kollam, which is pending before that court as C.C.No.273/04. Subsequently, this petition is filed by the petitioner-husband on 15.5.2006 with the prayer to quash Annexure A3 charge sheet. 6. Annexure A1 is the copy of the petition filed by the petitioner against the first respondent for custody of minor daughters, CRL.M.C.No.1393/06 -3- which was filed on 11.11.2005 and is pending before the Family Court, Kollam as GW(OP)No.487/05. Annexure A2 is the copy of the petition, O.P.No.49/06 filed by the first respondent and her children against the petitioner herein, before the Family Court, Kottarakkara claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- each per month. Annexure A4 is the copy of the order dated 27.10.2004 in Bail Application No.6183/04 filed by the petitioner herein before this Court for granting anticipatory bail in his favour in Crime No.699/04 of Kollam East Police Station. Annexure A5 is the copy of the FIR in Crime No.414/05 of Kollam West Police Station registered on 17.12.2005 for the offence under sections 341, 506(i), 295(b), 324 and 34 of IPC. One of the ground stated in this petition filed by the petitioner is that he is intending to have an amicable settlement with the first respondent- wife and he earnestly decides to have a re-union considering the life of his two daughters. 7. It is represented by the learned counsel for the first respondent that there is no chance for settlement and Annexure A3 charge pending before the Court of C.J.M., Kollam as C.C.No.273/04 is to be proceeded with. The allegations in this petition that Annexure A3 charge is false and without any merit, it does not disclose any offence CRL.M.C.No.1393/06 -4- under Section 498A, etc. are incorrect. 8. On hearing the argument advanced by both sides, and a perusal of the allegations in this petition, I find that the learned C.J.M., Kollam has received Annexure A3 charge sheet on file and proceedings are pending against the petitioner as C.C.No.273/04. Whether the petitioner herein has committed any offence under Section 498A of IPC is to be decided by the trial judge on the basis of the evidence to be adduced on the prosecution side and also the evidence, if any, on the side of the defence. This Court cannot come to conclusion that no offence has been committed by the petitioner herein as contended in this petition. Power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked only sparingly and in exceptional cases, to meet the ends of justice. It is held in the decision, Renu Kumari v. Sanjay Kumar (2009(1) SCC (Crl) 426) cited by the learned counsel for the respondent as follows: “9. Exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in a case of this nature is the exception and not the rule. The Section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of Cr.P.C. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction CRL.M.C.No.1393/06 -5- may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under Cr.P.C. (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction.” In the circumstances, I find that there is no merit in this petition and there is no ground to exercise the inherent jurisdiction of this Court as envisaged under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. This petition is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Crl.M.C. is dismissed. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn