IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2011 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1688 of 2011() ------------------------- SC.464/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... (CRIME NO.335/2011 OF MUHAMMA POLICE STATION) ... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.1: ------------------------------------------------- VIJILESH, S/O. VIJAJAN, AGED 22 YEARS, PANIKAMVELI HOUSE,WEST OF PUNNAPRA POLICE STATION, PUNNAPRA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.KRISHNA KUMAR (ALAPPUZHA), SRI.SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE DY. S.P., CHERTHALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. LAIJU MOL @ SEEMA, KOCHUTHAIKANDATHIL HOUSE, MUHAMMA PO, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688 525. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. MANU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.1688 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is accused in Crime No.335 of 2011 of Muhamma Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 496 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”) and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short, “the Act”). Case is registered on the information given by the defacto complainant. She stated that petitioner, on a false promise took her to a temple and tied a thally around her neck and made her believe that she is his wife, later took her to some places and she was subjected to sexual intercourse against her will. Thereafter she was sent to her house. Petitioner and others demanded Rupees three lakhs as dowry. Police registered a case for offences as above stated and investigated the same. It is contended that allegations are not sufficient to attract offences as above stated. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that Police could not have registered a case for offence punishable under Section 496 of the IPC in view of the bar under Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. 2. The case is now in the stage of investigation. It is premature for me to say whether any offence as alleged is involved. I am told that the defacto complainant has filed a similar complaint against another person and Crl.MC No.1688 of 2011 2 that the defacto complainant has duped petitioner. These are matters which the Investigating Officer has to look into. 3. So far as offence punishable under Section 496 of the IPC is concerned, Section 198 of the Code states that no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of the IPC except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. Even if the Investigating Officer submitted a final report for offence punishable under Section 496 of the IPC, it is within the power of learned Magistrate to refuse to take cognizance of the said offence (even if learned Magistrate decides to take cognizance of other offences if any, on the final report submitted by the Police.). It is open to the learned Magistrate at that stage to refuse to take cognizance of offence punishable under Section 496 of the IPC leaving it to the defacto complainant to work out her remedy so far as that offence is concerned (see Varghese v. Annamma and others - 1987 (1) KLT 104) However, now the question of taking cognizance of offence under Section 496 of the IPC has not arisen and hence it is not necessary to interfere in the matter at this stage. Resultantly this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is closed without prejudice to other rights if any of petitioner. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks