IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 330 of 2011()
1. KUNHASSI, W/O.LATE CHENOTH IBRAHIM,
... Petitioner
2. SHAHIDA, D/O.LATE CHENOTH IBRAHIM,
3. HARIS, S/O.LATE CHENOTH IBRAHIM,
4. MUSTHAFA,
Vs
1. SUMAYYA,
... Respondent
2. STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
For Petitioner :SRI.M.SASINDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :10/02/2011
O R D E R
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
====================================
Crl. M.C. No.330 of 2011
====================================
Dated this the 10th day of February, 2011
O R D E R
Petitioners are accused 2 to 5 in Crime No.809 of 2010 of
Payyannur Police Station for offences punishable under Sections
315 and 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Annexure-AIII is the complaint preferred by respondent No.1 which
was forwarded for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”) and based on which
the FIR was registered. Annexure-AIII, complaint contained
allegations that petitioners and first accused directly or indirectly
had always been demanding more ornaments and money and a
share in the property of mother of respondent No.1. It is alleged
that the first accused assaulted respondent No.1 on 13.12.2010
which was happily watched by the petitioners who even scolded
her. There are certain other allegations also in the complaint
implicating petitioners and the first accused. It is stated that first
respondent at the time she was allegedly assaulted by the first
accused was carrying, she consulted a medical officer who
advised her to have termination of the pregnancy (due to the
CRL.M.C. No.330 of 2011
-: 2 :-
alleged assault on her) and accordingly the pregnancy was
aborted on 26.12.2008 (due to first accused kicking her on the
abdomen).
2. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioners that
complaint is nothing but a sequel to the first accused not
complying with the demand of respondent No.1 to have a
separate residence. First accused had issued Annexure-AI, notice
on 20.03.2010 seeking restitution of conjugal rights to which first
respondent gave Annexure-AII, reply dated 07.04.2010. Learned
counsel invited my attention to paragraphs 9 and 10 of Annexure-
AII, reply where respondent No.1 is stated to have expressed
her desire to have a separate residence with the first accused. It
is also submitted by the learned counsel that police is harassing
petitioners in the light of the FIR. Learned counsel contends that
this is a fit case where FIR is to be quashed.
3. Truth or otherwise of the allegations in the complaint
and FIR are not required to be gone into in a proceeding under
Sec.482 of the Code. Allegations and counter allegations made by
the parties is a matter which should attract the attention of the
officer who is investigating the case who shall ascertain whether
the allegations are correct and if so who committed what offence.
I am sure , the Investigating Officer will look into all these aspects
CRL.M.C. No.330 of 2011
-: 3 :-
in the matter including the stand of petitioners as to why the first
respondent has filed the complaint, before concluding as to
whether any offence has been committed. In that view of the
matter I do not find reason to stall the investigation. But I direct
that the Investigating Officer shall not cause any harassment to
the petitioners while investigating the case. In case any final
report is filed against petitioners it is open to them to meet the
same as provided under law. I also make it clear that it is open to
the petitioners to move appropriate court with application for bail
and if any such application is preferred the court concerned shall
dispose of the same having regard to the facts and circumstances
of the case.
Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of with the above
observations and directions.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv
