IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 121 of 2009()
1. LAKSHMI, AGED 70 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. M.GEETHA, AGED 45 YEARS,
Vs
1. STATE - REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.SASINDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :09/01/2009
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.121 of 2009
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of January, 2009
ORDER
Petitioners are mother in law and sister in law respectively
of the defacto complainant in an indictment under Section 498 A
I.P.C. Cognizance was taken in that case on the basis of a final
report submitted by the police after due investigation in a crime
registered. That crime in turn was registered on the basis of a
complaint filed by the defacto complainant before the learned
Magistrate and referred by the learned Magistrate to the police
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Petitioners are arrayed as accused
3 and 4 in that complaint.
2. The police, after due investigation, filed a final report,
in which it was alleged that accused 1 and 2 alone, ie. the
husband and father in law of the defacto complainant, had
committed the offence punishable under Section 498 A I.P.C.
Cognizance was taken. Trial proceeded. Witnesses were
examined. PWs 1 to 9 were examined and Exts.P1 to P6 were
marked on the side of the prosecution. The case was thereafter
posted for 313 examination. At that stage the learned
Crl.M.C. No.121 of 2009 2
Magistrate found that though allegations were raised against the
petitioners in the complaint filed by the defacto complainant,
they had not been arrayed as accused. The learned Magistrate,
it appears, found that there was sufficient ground to proceed
against the petitioners herein also. On the basis of the evidence
on oath tendered by the witnesses before court, the learned
Magistrate entertained the satisfaction that the petitioners
herein also do deserve to be summoned and arrayed as accused
3 and 4 in the case. Accordingly invoking the jurisdiction under
Section 319 Cr.P.C, the petitioners have been brought on the
array of accused. Annexure-7 is the order passed by the learned
Magistrate exercising his jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C
to bring the petitioners on the array of accused.
3. The petitioners claim to be aggrieved by the
impugned order. What is the grievance ? The learned counsel
for the petitioners submits that though similar allegations were
raised by the petitioners in the complaint, after investigation, the
police had decided to drop the allegations against the
petitioners. In these circumstances there is no justification in
the present action by the learned Magistrate to array the
petitioners as accused.
Crl.M.C. No.121 of 2009 3
4. I shall carefully avoid any detailed discussion on
merits about the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility
of the data collected against them. The mere fact that the
investigators had dropped the petitioners from the array of
accused, cannot justifiably entitle the petitioners to any
immunity from impleadment under Section 319 Cr.P.C. I have
gone through the averments in the complaint. The allegations
raised against the petitioners in the course of evidence by the
witnesses have also been referred to. I need only mention that I
am unable to agree that there are any circumstances justifying
or warranting the invocation of the extraordinary inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to interfere with the
impugned order passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
5. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but
I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this petition will not
in any way fetter the rights of the petitioners to raise all
appropriate and relevant contentions before the learned
Magistrate at subsequent stage.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-