IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 137 of 2007()
1. VASU, S/O. NANU,
... Petitioner
2. KAMALAKSHY, W/O. VASU,
3. SURENDRAN, S/O. PAPPU,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. SYAMALA KUMARI, W/O. SUGATHAN V.,
3. SUGATHAN V., S/O. VASU,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.BABU THOMAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :16/01/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.CNo.137 of 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of January, 2007
ORDER
Petitioners are accused 2 to 4 in a private complaint filed by the
2nd respondent herein. The 3rd respondent is the 1st accused. The 2nd
respondent herein is the wife of the 3rd respondent. Petitioners are
parentS and uncle of the 3rd respondent. The offences alleged are the
ones punishable under Section 498 A, 323 and 506 read with Section
34 I.P.C.
2. The private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent before
the learned Magistrate was forwarded by the learned Magistrate to
the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. A copy of the private
complaint is produced as Annexure-A1. On the basis of Annexure-A1
complaint referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C,
Shooranad Police has registered Crime No.238 of 2004. A copy of the
F.I.R is produced as Annexure-A2.
3. The petitioners have come to this Court with the prayer
that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to quash
Annexure-A2 F.I.R in so far as it relates to the petitioners/accused 2 to
4.
4. What are the reasons ? The learned counsel for the
petitioners contends that the allegations are inherently improbable
Crl.M.CNo.137 of 2007 2
and cannot be accepted. It is extremely improbable that the
petitioners who do not reside along with respondents 2 and 3 would
have gone to the place of residence of respondents 2 and 3 and
encouraged the 3rd respondent to assault and commit the offences
against the 2nd respondent. From 1995 to 2006, accused 2 and 3 were
employed in the Army and they had returned to the native place only
after their retirement on 04.01.2006. The allegations are raised by
the 2nd respondent against the petitioners with fraudulent and
vexatious intent. No medical certificate whatsoever is produced. No
local witnesses who could have witnessed the incident have been
cited also. In these circumstances, the counsel submits that
continuation of the investigation on the basis of Annexure-A2 F.I.R
would be a traversity of justice and in these circumstances prays that
the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked.
5. I have anxiously considered the submissions made at the
Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioners. I have perused the
petition filed and also the annexures. I shall scrupulously avoid any
detailed discussion on the acceptability of the allegations raised by
the 2nd respondent against the petitioners in Annexure-A1. Suffice it
to say that at this stage and with the available inputs and conscious of
the nature and quality of the jurisdiction of this Court under Section
482 Cr.P.C, it would be presumptuous on the part of this Court to
Crl.M.CNo.137 of 2007 3
jump to the conclusion that the allegations are totally false and
therefore no investigation need be conducted into the allegations
raised. I have no reason to assume that the Investigating Officer shall
not conduct a proper investigation in accordance with law and
ascertain truth/falsity of the allegations raised. I am, in these
circumstances, not satisfied that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C
can or ought to be invoked to prematurely terminate the investigation
which has already commenced against the petitioners.
6. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. But I
may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this Crl.M.C shall not in
any way fetter the rights of the petitioners to seek anticipatory bail
from the court concerned or to raise all appropriate and relevant
contentions in case final report is filed against them.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-
Crl.M.CNo.137 of 2007 4