IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2680 of 2009()
1. MICHEL RAJ,
... Petitioner
2. LUCKOS,
3. SUSHEELA XAVIOR,
4. XAVIOUR,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. MABEL,DAUGHTER OF REETHA,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.M.PREM
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :01/02/2010
O R D E R
P.BHAVADASAN, J.
---------------------------
Crl.M.C No.2680 OF 2009
--------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of February 2010
-----------------------------------------------------
ORDER
This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C
seeking to have Annexure 1 and 2 and all further proceedings in
C.C No.155/2007 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court-III, Neyyattinkara quashed.
2. Petitioners are arrayed as accused in C.C 155/2007
of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Neyyattinkara
alleging offences punishable under section 498A r/w 34 IPC.
3. The 1st petitioner is the husband of the 2nd
respondent and the 2nd petitioner is the father of the 1st petitioner.
3rd petitioner is the sister and 4th petitioner is her husband.
4. Marriage between the 1st petitioner and 2nd
respondent was solemnized on 29/01/2001 at St.Theresa Avila
Church as per Christian religious rites. After marriage the 1st
petitioner got a job and he went abroad. It is stated that after
eight months of delivery, the 2nd respondent went to her parents
house and thereafter she did not return to the matrimonial house.
2nd respondent refused to live with 1st petitioner. There are Crl.M.C No.2680 OF 2009 Page numbers
several litigations between the parties. 1st petitioner would say
that the complaint is made without any basis. It is also pointed
out that complaint is filed after a long time of the alleged incident
and therefore, the proceedings are nothing but waste of time of
the court.
5. On going through the complaint and records it is
seen that the incidents stated happened between 2001 and 2003.
It is seen that the allegations against petitioners 2, 3 and 4 are
vague in nature. There is nothing to show that the 1st petitioner
misappropriated 2nd respondent’s ornaments and money and
utilized it for the purpose of petitioners 2 and 3.
6. Therefore, this petition is allowed so far as
petitioners 2, 3 and 4 are concerned. Proceedings in C.C
No.155/2007 pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-
III, Neyyattinkara and all further proceedings against them shall
stand quashed.
Sd/-
P.BHAVADASAN,
JUDGE
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
vdv