IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 10TH APRIL 2007 / 20TH CHAITHRA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 1142 of 2007() ------------------------- CC.840/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PARAVOOR .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ------------ 1. PUSHPA , AGED 48 YEARS, RAJESH NIVAS, KUZHIYAM, CHANDANATHOPPU P.O. 2. GIRIJA, W/O.RAVINDRAN, AGED 49 YEARS, REMYA NIVAS, PARAYAKADU P.O., THURAVOOR, ALAPPUZHA. 3. RAVINDRAN, AGED 56 YEARS, REMYA NIVAS, PARAYAKADU P.O., THURAVOOR, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARAVUR, KOLLAM. 2. SUMANGALA, AGED 42 YEARS, ATHAM HOUSE, NEDUNGOLAM CHERRY, PARAVUR, KOLLAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/04/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 1142 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of April, 2007 O R D E R The petitioners are accused 2 to 4 in a prosecution, inter alia, under Section 498A I.P.C. The first accused is the husband of the defacto complainant. Petitioners are accused 2 to 4 they being the sisters (A2 and A3) and brother-in-law (A4) of the 1st accused. Proceedings commenced on the basis of a private complaint filed by the defacto complainant/2nd respondent before the learned Magistrate. That complaint was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Investigation was conducted and final report was filed by the police. Cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate and process has been issued against all the four accused persons, including the petitioners. The petitioners have come to this Court with this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that the proceedings against them may be quashed. 2. What are the reasons? The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations are totally false. The counsel relies on various circumstances in support of this contention that the Crl.M.C.No. 1142 of 2007 2 allegations are false and cannot be accepted. The petitioners are alleged to reside along with the couple, but actually they are residing elsewhere going by the ration card issued in their favour, it is first contended. It is next contended that the allegations are inconsistent with the earlier allegations made by the complainant before various authorities. In short, the crux of the contention is that the allegations raised are not acceptable and are raised with vexatious intent. 3. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of jurisdiction which I am called upon to invoke and exercise. That is the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Such jurisdiction is not to be invoked as a matter of course. It is to be invoked only in exceptional cases, sparingly and in aid of justice. Ordinarily and normally the indictee will be left to claim the relief of discharge or acquittal in accordance with the Code. Exceptional circumstances may exist in the facts of a rare and exceptional case which may justify the invocation of the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is by now trite that disputed questions of fact cannot be attempted to be resolved ordinarily by invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Crl.M.C.No. 1142 of 2007 3 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has laboriously attempted to take me through the various contentions raised on facts. I shall carefully avoid any expression of opinion on merits and detailed discussion lest it may adversely affect the interests of the parties. Suffice it to say that I am not persuaded to agree, on a consideration of all the relevant contentions urged that this is a fit case where the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners must resort to the ordinary and normal procedure of claiming discharge under Section 239/240 Cr.P.C. and if that be not possible, acquittal at the later stage. 5. This Crl.M.C. is dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm