IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2011 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 729 of 2011() ------------------------ CC.8/2011 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER(S):A1 TO A4: --------------------------------------- 1. RAHUL,S/O.RATNAKARAN,AGE 25, RAHUL NIVAS, SISILIPURAM,KATTACHALKUZHI, BALARAMAPURAM(A1) 2. RATNAKARAN,S/O.VISWAMBHARAN OF -DO-DO-(A2) 3. SREEKALA,S/O. RATNAKARAN OF ..DO.. -DO-(A3) 4. V.S.REHNA,S/O.SREEKALA, OF .DO.. -DO-(A4) BY ADVS. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR, SRI.THOSHIN V.S. RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- 1. HIMA, D/O.SURESH,AGE 23, ARUNIMA, KATTACHALKUZHI,BALARAMAPURAM. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.729 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of March, 2011. ORDER Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 4 in C.C. No.8 of 2011 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Neyyattinkara facing trial for offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”). It is submitted, learned Magistrate took cognizance on the complaint filed by respondent No.1. Prayer in this petition is to quash proceeding for the reason that the allegations contained in the complaint, even if taken as a whole do not disclose offence under Section 498A of the Code and, much less against petitioner Nos.2 to 4. 2. Respondent No.1 is the wife of petitioner No.1. She has made certain allegations against petitioners based on which learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Code and process was issued to petitioners. Learned counsel for petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and another [(2010) 7 SCC 667] to contend that allegations relating offence punishable under Section 498A of the Code must be specific and particularly when the relatives of the husband are attempted to be roped in. Contention raised is that the allegations in the complaint even if accepted are not sufficient to conviction Crl.MC No.729/2011 2 under Section 498A of the Code . I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel that the learned Magistrate has not framed charge against petitioners. Since learned Magistrate has not so far framed charge as the learned counsel submits, it is open to the petitioners to plead discharge as provided under Section 245(1) or (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Cr.P.C.”). In the circumstance I do not consider it necessary to interfere under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 4. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner Nos.2 to 4 may be permitted to plead discharge in absentia. They are the parents and sister of petitioner No.1. Having regard to the circumstances stated I am inclined to allow that request. Resultantly this petition is disposed of without prejudice to the right of petitioners to plead discharge before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Neyyattinkara under Section 245 (1) or (2) of the Cr.P.C. Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are permitted to plead discharge appearing through counsel. Needless to say that it is open to the petitioners to urge all the grounds they have urged in this petition before the learned Magistrate while pleading for discharge. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks