IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2008 / 11TH ASWINA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 870 of 2006() ------------------------ CC.460/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, KANNUR .................... PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED 3 TO 5: ---------------------- 1. C.K.SEENA, W/O.VISWANATHAN, THAZHATHU VEEDU, PAYANGADI.P.O, KANNUR. 2. C.K.SMITHA, W/O.UNNIKRISHNAN, KANIARKANDY HOUSE, KOYYODE.P.O, KANNUR. 3. UNNIKRISHNAN, KANJARKANDY HOUSE, KOYYODE.P.O, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY SRI.BIJI MATHEW RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANTS --------------------------- 1. K.V.JAYAGEETHA, D/O.E.K.LAKSHMIKUTTY, KADAMPUR HOUSE, KUNNUR, PATTUVAM.P.O, KANNUR. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN FOR R1 SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No.870 OF 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of October 2008 ORDER Petitioners who have been arraigned as accused Nos.3 to 5 in a private complaint filed by respondent No.1 herein, have preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the above proceedings pending against them. 2. In the above complaint, respondent 1/complainant has alleged that the accused five in number, had physically and mentally harassed and tortured her during her stay at the matrimonial home and thus committed the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. It is on record that Valapattanam Police had registered Crime No.747/04 after receipt of the complaint from the Court under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Annexure A1 and A2 are the First Information Report and the Charge Sheet respectively. 3. The case of respondent No.1/complainant was that accused No.1 had married her in accordance with the custom prevailing in their community on May 4, 2003. According to the complainant, accused Nos. 2 to 5 who are the mother, sisters and brother-in-law of her husband had been harassing her demanding for more dowry. Crl.M.C.No.870 OF 2006 :: 2 :: It is not necessary to advert or refer to the various allegations which are seen made in Annexure A2 complaint filed by the complainant before the Court, which was referred to the police for further investigation. 4. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, there are no specific allegations against the petitioners with regard to any harassment or torture either mental or physical. The case of the petitioners is that the complainant was responsible for the disharmony in the marital relationship between her and respondent No.1. They have made a further allegation that the complainant was in fact pregnant at the time of marriage which she got aborted in Bombay in the month of August 2003. Yet again, I refrain from making any comment or observation on the said allegation. 5. Petitioners 1 and 2 (accused Nos.3 and 4) are sisters of accused No.1. Petitioner No.3 is the husband of petitioner No.2. It is the specific case of the petitioners that they have been living in their respective matrimonial homes whereas the complainant was living with her husband (accused No.1) in their parental home. It is also on record that accused No.2 the mother of accused 1 is no Crl.M.C.No.870 OF 2006 :: 3 :: more. 6. I have carefully perused the complaint (Annexure A2). As mentioned earlier, there are no specific allegations of mental or physical harassment that were allegedly perpetrated by the petitioners. On a careful consideration of the entire averments in the complaint, I am satisfied that the petitioners need not be asked to face trial in the case. 7. I am persuaded to take the above view for yet another reason. The complaint was filed by the complainant before the Court in December 2004. Most of the allegations made in the complaint relate to the first half of September 2004. Moreover, all the allegations in the complaint pertaining to the petitioners (though remotely) are totally vague. It is also brought to my notice that accused No.1 has already filed a petition for divorce while the complainant has instituted a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance. 8.Keeping in view the above aspects, particularly, the averments in the complaint, I am satisfied that the proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.460/05 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Kannur, are liable to be Crl.M.C.No.870 OF 2006 :: 4 :: quashed. I do so. Crl.M.C. is allowed. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) jes