IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4352 of 2008()
1. SUKUMARY AMMA,D/O. BHAVANI AMMA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
2. K.S.RAMESH BABU, S/O.KARUNAKARAN NAIR
3. REMA DEVI, D/O. SARASAMMA
For Petitioner :SRI.VAZHUTHACAUD R.NARENDRAN NAIR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :14/11/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
Crl.M.C.No.4352 of 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of November 2008
O R D E R
The petitioner has an unfortunate tale to narrate. Her
daughter was married to a person who was employed in the
forces. There was some strain in the relationship between the
spouses and the wife, that is the petitioner’s daughter, was left at
home. There were attempts to settle the disputes between them.
The superior officer of the son-in-law in the forces had allegedly
assured that the daughter of the petitioner shall not be obliged
to suffer any indignity. Accordingly, the spouses had resumed
co-habitation. She was residing at Ludhiana with her husband.
She met with her death when she was residing with her husband
at Ludhiana. While the husband explained that it was a case of
simple suicide, the petitioner apprehended that there was some
foul play involved. She came to this court. As per the directions
of this court, a crime was registered. Investigation was
conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. There was
change in incumbents occupying the chair. Investigation was
ultimately concluded and a report was filed to the court that no
Crl.M.C.No.4352/08 2
crime has been committed in respect of the death of the
petitioner’s daughter and that it was a case of suicide. That final
report is annexed with this petition as Annexure I dated
28/09/2005.
2. Dissatisfied with the said report, it appears that the
petitioner filed a private complaint (a copy of which is produced
as Annexure II). That petition happened to be dismissed under
Section 203 Cr.P.C. The petitioner came to this court to assail
that order. Annexure III order was passed by another Bench of
this court on 08/08/2007 and the said Crl.R.P.No.2679/07 was
allowed. The petitioner was granted further opportunity to
substantiate her case.
3. When the matter reached the learned Magistrate, the
petitioner, it appears, represented and filed a memo stating that
she does not intend to proceed with the case. Accordingly,
Annexure V order was passed on 19/07/2003. It appeared that
there was a decent burial of the entire controversy with
Annexure V. But now the petitioner has come to this court again
and submits that a further investigation ought to be conducted
into the crime registered under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.
Crl.M.C.No.4352/08 3
4. I have narrated the sequence of events. The
petitioner admittedly has not moved the learned Magistrate
under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C or under Section 156 Cr.P.C to
direct a further investigation to be conducted. I need only
mention that in the facts and circumstances of this case I am not
at all persuaded to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction
to issue any further directions in the matter.
5. This Crl.M.C is accordingly dismissed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
Crl.M.C.No.4352/08 4
Crl.M.C.No.4352/08 5
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.C.No. of 2008
ORDER
09/07/2008