IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2008 / 17TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2166 of 2005 ------------------------- CC.214/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AMABALAPUZHA .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED: -------------------- 1. KAMALAMMA, PRASANNA BHAVAN, KARUMADI P.O., AMBALAPPUZHA. 2. PADMA OF DO. BY ADV. SRI.BINDU SREEKUMAR SRI.K.G.RENGANATH SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP (SR.) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. S. SREEJAYADEVI, JYOTHIS, KIZHAKKAN MUTHOOR, KUTTAPUZHA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) FOR R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. P.A. SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/08/2008, ALONG WITH CRMC NO. 1005 OF 2006 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A. NO. 9037/2005 IN CRL.M.C.NO. 2166 OF 20052 DISMISSED. 8-8-2008 SD/-M.C. HARI RANI, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.S.TO JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI, J. =============================== CRL.M.C.NOS. 2166 OF 2005 & 1005 OF 2006 ================================ Dated this the 8TH AUGUST 2008 ORDER The petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.1005/2006 is the first accused and petitioners 1 and 2 in Crl.M.C.2166/2005 are accused Nos.2 and 3 respectively in C.C.No.214/2005 pending on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ambalappuzha. That case was instituted against accused 1 to 3 on the basis of a private complaint filed by the first respondent, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-B in Crl.M.C.No.2166/2005. The first respondent is the wife of the first accused and accused Nos.2 and 3 are respectively the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant. The offence alleged against them is under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 filed Crl.M.C.No.2166/2005 to quash Annexure-B complaint and the same prayer is made in Crl.M.C.No.1005/2006 filed by the first accused and the copy of the private complaint CRMC.2166/2005 & 1005/2006 -2- preferred by the first respondent therein is produced as Annexure-D. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both these petitions and also the learned counsel for the first respondent. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings are pending against the first accused/husband, who is the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.1005/2006, as per Annexure-B charge produced in that petition and on the basis of the very same allegation, the private complaint was filed by the first respondent herein, which is pending before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ambalapuzha as C.C.No.214/2005. Originally Crime No.8/2003 was registered against accused 1 to 3 under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which was investigated by the Sub Inspector of Police, Ambalapuzha and after investigation accused Nos.2 and 3 were deleted from the party array and report was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, CRMC.2166/2005 & 1005/2006 -3- Ambalapuzha against the first accused/husband under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. A copy of that report is produced as Annexure-A in Crl.M.C.1005/2006. Accordingly, the cognizance was taken against the first accused by the learned Magistrate, which is pending as C.C.No.682/2003 before that court. Since the police have deleted accused Nos.2 and 3 from array of the accused as per the report, Annexure-A in C.C.No.1005/2006, the first respondent /wife preferred a protest complaint and filed the same before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ambalapuzha, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-B in Crl.M.C.No.2166/2005. That case is numbered as C.C.No.214/2005 before that court and is pending against accused 1 to 3 alleging offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. I find no illegality or irregularity in proceeding both cases by the learned Magistrate. One case on the basis of the police report and the other case on the basis of the protest complaint/private complaint filed by the de facto complainant, who is the first CRMC.2166/2005 & 1005/2006 -4- respondent in these two petitions. Therefore, the prayer made in this petition is to quash Annexure-B private complaint as prayed for in Crl.M.C.No.2166/2005 for the reason that the first accused has to face the trial in C.C.No.682/2003 filed on the basis of the police report for the same allegations cannot be taken as a ground. There is no merit in that prayer, which cannot be allowed. So also no ground is made out to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.214/2005 pending against accused 1 to 3 proceeded by the learned Magistrate on the basis of the private complaint filed by the first respondent/wife with specific allegations against them in the private complaint. The Magistrate took cognizance of the same after convincing that a prima facie case is there to proceed against those accused. The clubbing or consolidation of both cases cannot be done by the learned Magistrate in such circumstances. Therefore, the prayers in these petitions are rejected as is devoid of merit. CRMC.2166/2005 & 1005/2006 -5- In the result, these petitions are dismissed and the learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of both cases in accordance with law as per the procedure contemplated under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. M.C. HARI RANI JUDGE ks.