IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3844 of 2005()
1. ZEENATH, D/O.ERAMULLAN, ZEENATH MANZIL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ANEESA, W/O.MUHAMMED KUNHI, AKBAR
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :25/02/2009
O R D E R
M.C.HARI RANI, J.
-----------------------------------------------------
CRL.M.C.No.3844 OF 2005
-----------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY , 2009
O R D E R
The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.1241/04 pending on
the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-I, Hosdurg. The
prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is to
quash Annexure-II complaint in C.C.No.1241/04.
2. The statement of facts alleged in this petition are as
follows:
C.C.No.1241/04 is pending before the Court of J.F.C.M.-I,
Hosdurg and it was instituted on the basis of a complaint filed by
the first respondent on 21.8.2003 alleging offence under Section
498A IPC, copy of which is produced as Annexure-II. The learned
Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and
took cognizance of the case against the petitioner as the sole
accused. It is further alleged in this petition that Annexure II
complaint filed against the petitioner herein by the first
respondent is not sustainable for the reason that an earlier
complaint has been filed by the first respondent against her
CRL.M.C.No.3844/05 -2-
divorced husband and the petitioner herein, who is the sister-in-law of
the first respondent alleging offence under Section 498A IPC, copy of
which is produced as Annexure-I. That complaint was filed on
28.2.2001 relating to the incident of the year 1999. That complaint
was sent by the learned Magistrate for investigation under Section 156
(3) Cr.P.C. and the police after investigation filed the final report
against the divorced husband only and the petitioner herein was
deleted from the array of the accused as revealed from Annexure-I
complaint. The learned Magistrate on receipt of that refer report
proceeded against the divorced husband of the first respondent alone
as C.C.No.316/01. Subsequently, on 21.8.2003, the present
complaint, which is challenged in this petition, has been filed by the
first respondent, which according to the petitioner, is barred by
limitation. Hence this petition is filed to quash Annexure II complaint
and all further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1241/04.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
the first respondent.
4. The relationship between the parties is admitted. According
to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in pursuance of
Annexure I complaint filed on 28.2.2001 against the petitioner also by
CRL.M.C.No.3844/05 -3-
the complainant, the first respondent, the police had investigated the
case under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and filed the final report against
the divorced husband alone of the complainant and the petitioner
herein who is the sister-in-law of the complainant was deleted from the
array of the accused. On receipt of that refer report, the learned
Magistrate proceeded the case against the divorced husband alone as
C.C.No.316/01. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the
trial of that case was completed and judgment has been pronounced
by the learned Magistrate acquitting the accused in that case/the
divorced husband of the first respondent herein.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the first
respondent that though the case against the husband of the first
respondent was ended in acquittal, it cannot be taken as a ground to
quash the present complaint, which was preferred by the first
respondent, as she was dissatisfied with the refer report filed by the
police in respect of the earlier complaint preferred by her against the
petitioner also. Copy of the second complaint preferred by the first
respondent is produced along with this petition as Annexure-II,
wherein it is complained that specific instances were there regarding
the torture made by the petitioner herein against the first respondent
CRL.M.C.No.3844/05 -4-
and that she has not received copy of the refer report. For that
reason, a second complaint has been filed on 21.8.2003. It is also
submitted by the learned counsel that the learned Magistrate took
cognizance of the case as C.C.No.1241/04 only after recording the
sworn statement of the complainant and satisfied that sufficient
ingredients are there to attract the offence under Section 498A of IPC
against the petitioner herein, which cannot be quashed at this stage.
6. On a perusal of the allegations in this petition and also on
hearing the argument advanced by both counsel and on a perusal of
the documents produced herein, it is evident that the case of the first
respondent in the second complaint is that she has not received notice
of the refer report and for that reason she has preferred a second
complaint against the petitioner herein which was taken cognizance by
the learned Magistrate and is pending as C.C.No.1241/04. Whether
sufficient ingredients are there to attract the offence under Section
498A of IPC against the petitioner herein will be decided by the learned
Magistrate after considering the evidence to be adduced on the side of
the prosecution and evidence on the defence side if any. The
petitioner’s case that there are no chance to convict the petitioner
even after adducing evidence, cannot be taken as a ground to quash
CRL.M.C.No.3844/05 -5-
the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The ground that the
divorced husband against whom very nature of the complaint with the
same facts were stated by the first respondent in the earlier complaint,
Annexure-I and was acquitted after trial cannot also be taken into
consideration to allow this petition. Considering these aspects and the
facts of the case which is in dispute, I find that there is no sufficient
ground to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section
482 of Cr.P.C. which has to be exercised only sparingly and with
caution and that too to meet the ends of justice. Hence I find that this
petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
In the result the Crl.M.C. is dismissed. The petitioner herein is at
liberty to advance all the contentions before the learned Magistrate.
Sd/-
M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.
dsn