IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2008 / 16TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2523 of 2008() ------------------------- CR.NO. 169/08 OF KUMBLA POLICE STATION PETITIONER: ------------ 1. A.N.ABDUL HAKEEM, S/O.MUHAMMED ABDULLA, NADUVALAPPU HOUSE, ICHILAMKODE.P.O, MANGALPADY VIA KASARAGODE TALUK. 2. FATHIMATH ZUHARA, W/O.A.N.ABDUL HAKEEM, RESIDING -DO- 3. MUHAMMED.K.A, S/O.ABDUL RLAHIMAN, KANDALAYAM HOUSE, DHARMATHADUKKE, MANGALPPADY P.O, KASARAGODE TALUK. 4. NABEESA, W/O.MUHAMMED, RESIDING -DO- BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT/STATE ------------------------------ 1. THUSMIYA, W/O.A.N.ABDUL HAKEEM, AGED 29 YEARS, SANAS VILLAGE, PACHAMBALAM, MANGALPADY VIA, ICHILAMKODE P.O, KASARAGODE. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUMBLA POLICE STATION. 3. STATE REP; BY PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 & 3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 2523 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of July, 2008 O R D E R The petitioners are the husband of the defacto complainant, his second wife and in-laws in the second marriage. The crux of the allegations is that the husband and his relatives (i.e. the second wife and her parents) are guilty of matrimonial cruelty of the culpable variety punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. against the victim/defacto complainant. Allegations have been raised in a private complaint filed before the learned Magistrate, which was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend unjustified adverse action against them in the crime. They have hence come to this Court with a prayer that the F.I.R. registered may be quashed. 2. What is the reason? The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations are so improbable that the same cannot be swallowed. After discussions at the Bar there is Crl.M.C.No. 2523 of 2008 2 no specific contention that the second wife or her relatives cannot be reckoned as relatives of the first accused husband as to attract culpability under Section 498A I.P.C. The only contention then is that the allegations are improbable and unacceptable. On that ground, I am not satisfied that, the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can or should be invoked to prematurely terminate the investigation. Whether the allegation would fall within the sweep of explanation A to Section 498 I.P.C. will certainly have to be decided in the course of the investigation by the Investigating Officer initially and later, if necessary, by the courts. I am not persuaded to agree that the F.I.R. deserves to be quashed in the given circumstance. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that great injustice would result if the petitioners were arrested and detained in custody. They can either seek anticipatory bail before appropriate court or they can choose to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate. I have no reason to assume that, if the petitioners surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail after giving sufficient prior notice to Crl.M.C.No. 2523 of 2008 3 the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate would not consider the applications to be filed by them on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. Sufficient general directions have already been issued by this Court in the decision in Alice George v. Dy.S.P. of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339). 4. This application is accordingly dismissed, but with the above specific observations. (R. BASANT) Judge tm