High Court Kerala High Court

Justin vs Mareena on 24 January, 2011

Kerala High Court
Justin vs Mareena on 24 January, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 109 of 2011()


1. JUSTIN, S/O.MATHEW, VALIYAPAIKKATTU
                      ...  Petitioner
2. MATHEW JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH,
3. GRACY MATHEW, W/O.MATHEW,
4. JAYA MATHEW,  D/O.MATHEW,

                        Vs



1. MAREENA, D/O.GEORGE KUTTY, PAIKADA HOUSE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.G.ANIL BABU

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH

 Dated :24/01/2011

 O R D E R
                            THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
                           --------------------------------------
                             Crl.M.C. No.109 of 2011
                           --------------------------------------
                    Dated this the 24th day of January, 2011.

                                        ORDER

Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.1120 of 2010 of Pala

Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498A read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Case is that petitioners subjected

respondent No.1, the defacto complainant to cruelty demanding more ornaments

and committed breach of trust. Case was registered on a complaint preferred by

respondent No.1 and forwarded to the Police for investigation under Section 156

(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the petitioners, petitioner

No.1 had filed Annexure-AI, O.P.(Div.) No.978 of 2010 for divorce in the Family

Court, Ettumanoor and on getting notice of that petition respondent No.1 filed

complaint alleging commission of offences as above stated. According to the

learned counsel no offence is made out.

2. However, after arguing the matter for some time, learned counsel

requested permission to withdraw this proceeding without prejudice to the right

of petitioners to take up appropriate defence in the trial court at the appropriate

stage.

Crl.M.C.No.109/2011

2

Having heard learned counsel and the Public Prosecutor I am inclined to

allow the request. Accordingly this petition is dismissed as withdrawn without

prejudice to other rights if any of petitioner raise appropriate defence in the trial

court at the appropriate stage.

THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
Judge.

cks