IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2008 / 7TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 339 of 2006() ------------------------ CP.33/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER: 2ND ACCUSED: ------------------------ KOTTIYAL BIJU, S/O. KRISHNAN, AGED 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOTTIYAL HOUSE, CHOVVA, KANNUR-6. BY ADV. SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR RESPONDENTS: STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUSRUTHAN, S/O. ACHUTHAN, AGED 37 YEARS, AYADATHIL HOUSE, P.O. KADALAYI, EDAKKAD AMSOM, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.RAMADASAN FOR R2 SRI.CIBI THOMAS FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- Crl.M.C.339/2006 -------------------- Dated this the 29th day of August, 2008 ORDER The second accused in C.P.33/2005 now on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur, is the petitioner herein. Petitioner's sister Beena met with her death on 4.4.2003 and apparently, cause of death was suicide. Complainant in Annexure-3, the second respondent herein, was the husband of Beena. After the death of Beena, the police have registered a case against the second respondent herein for offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498 IPC and the same is now pending before the Sessions Court. It is contended that Annexure-3 complaint making allegations against the father and brother of the deceased is filed by the husband almost after a period of four months. It contains fanciful allegations. It is further contended that there is no specific allegation against the second accused, the petitioner herein, and therefore, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the committal proceedings Crl.M.C.339/2006 2 in so far as the second accused is concerned. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the second respondent. I have perused Annexure-3 complaint as well. It cannot be said that there is no allegation as such against the petitioner herein, in Annexure-3 complaint. Of course, the petitioner has a serious case that Annexure-3 is only a counter blast and an evasive measure adopted by the second respondent. These are matters for appreciation of evidence or at least would be a matter which may be considered by the learned Magistrate at the time of committal. This Court will have to simply read Annexure-3 complaint and then find out whether on a reading of the same, it makes out an offence. There are allegations in Annexure-3 complaint. All other contentions of the accused are obviously a matter to be taken up before the Court below. 3. In the result, I do not find any reason to invoke the Crl.M.C.339/2006 3 extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings in C.P.33/2005. Crl.M.C is accordingly dismissed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs