IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2329 of 2008()
1. PARAMESWARAN NAIR ,AGED 76
... Petitioner
2. SARASWATHI AMMA,AGED 69,
3. SUJATHA, AGED 37 YEARS
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
2. JISHA, AGED 27
For Petitioner :SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :20/06/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.2329 of 2008
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of June, 2008
ORDER
The petitioners are the father-in-law, mother-in-law and
sister-in-law of the 2nd respondent who had raised an allegation
that matrimonial cruelty of the culpable variety was inflicted
on her by the petitioners as also her husband. A private
complaint filed by her was referred to the police by the learned
Magistrate under Sec.156(3) of the Cr.P.C. An F.I.R. was
registered. Investigation was conducted. Final report was
filed and cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate.
The petitioners had appeared before the learned Magistrate
and have at that stage come to this Court with this application
under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer that the prosecution
against them may be quashed invoking the extraordinary
inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C.
Crl.M.C. No. 2329 of 2008 -: 2 :-
2. What is the reason? The learned counsel for the
petitioners contends that the allegations are false. The
petitioners are old and sick. In these circumstances,
continuance of the steps for prosecution would work out great
prejudice and hardship to the petitioners. The learned counsel
relies on the further circumstance that there was delay in
lodging the complaint and the complaint was filed only after an
application for restitution was filed by the husband of the de
facto complainant.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. I
have gone through the materials in detail. I shall carefully avoid
any detailed discussions on merits about the acceptability of the
allegations or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to
say that I am not persuaded to agree that there are any
circumstances which warrant or justify the invocation of the
extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C.
I shall not express any opinion on merits as to whether the
petitioners are entitled for premature termination of the
prosecution initiated against them. I am of opinion that the
petitioners must be relegated to seek the ordinary and normal
remedies available for them under the Code to claim premature
termination of the proceedings. In a case like the instant one,
Crl.M.C. No. 2329 of 2008 -: 3 :-
they have to resort to the provisions of Sec.239/240 of the
Cr.P.C. to claim such premature termination by discharge.
4. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed. I may hasten to
observe that the dismissal of this Crl.M.C. will not in any way
fetter the rights of the petitioners to claim discharge/acquittal at
the appropriate stage before the court below.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are old and sick. If insistence were made
ritualistically on the personal appearance of the petitioners on
all dates of posting that would work out great prejudice and
hardship to the petitioners. I find no reason why any court
should make such insistence on personal appearance when the
purpose of the trial does not need the presence of the
petitioners. The petitioners can certainly apply to the learned
Magistrate for exemption from personal appearance and when
such application is made, the learned Magistrate must consider
the same on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy// P.S. to Judge
Crl.M.C. No. 2329 of 2008 -: 4 :-