In the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN** **FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/2ND PHALGUNA, 1935** **Crl.MC.No. 1006 of 2013 ()** ## **--------------------------CC.NO. 540/2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II PERINTHALMANNA** **-------------------------------** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:** **------------------------------------------------------** **1. MAHESH S. PANIKER, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.OMANAKUTTA PANIKER, SEA PEAK, VENGAZHA, EZHAMATTUR POST, PATHANAMTHITTA.** **2. OMANAKUTTA PANIKER, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.KESAVA PILLAI, SEA PEAK, VENGAZHA, EZHAMATTUR POST, PATHANAMTHITTA.** **3. N.R.RADHAMANI, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O.OMANAKUTTA PANIKER, SEA PEAK, VENGAZHA, EZHAMATTUR POST, PATHANAMTHITTA.** **4. UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN PILLAI, CHAITHRAM, MALLAPPALLY EAST P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA.** **BY ADV. SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT :** **------------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,** **HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-31.** **2. K.P.DEEPTHI,D/O.SUBHASH BABU, KARANGATTU PANAKKADU HOUSE, VELLILA, MANGADA P.O., PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.REJI JOSEPH R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **CRMC.NO.1006/2013** **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S) ANNEXURES:** **ANNEX A1: TRUE COPY OF THE O.P.(HMA) NO.716 OF 2012 FOR DIVORCE IN THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM.** **ANNEX A2: TRUE COPY OF THE TREATMENT CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THIRD PETITIONER FROM AMRITA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH CENTRE.** **ANNEX A3: TRUE COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE OF FIRST PETITIONER ISSUED BY CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT MEDICAL BOARD, PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 6/11/2001.** **ANNEX A4: TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.138/12 FILED BY MANAKADA POLICE STATION.** **ANNEX A5: TRUE COLOUR PHOTOCOPY OF THE SCAN REPORT DATED 29/11/2011 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT SHOWING THAT, SHE IS NEVER CONCEIVED.** **ANNEX A6: TRUE COPY OF the SECOND RESPONDENT'S DIARY NOTE.** **ANNEX A7: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.138/12 OF MANKADA POLICE STATION.** ## **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:** ## **NIL** ## **/TRUE COPY/** ## **P.A.TO.JUDGE** **sts** ## **P.D. RAJAN, J.** ------------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.1006 of 2013 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 21[st] day of February, 2014 ## **ORDER** This petition is filed U/s.482 Cr.P.C. to quash all proceedings in C.C.No.540/2012 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perinthalmanna. Petitioners are accused in the above case, which was charge sheeted U/s.498A r/w 34 IPC by the Sub Inspector of Police, Mankada. The 2[nd] respondent filed the above case alleging that the 1[st] petitioner, who is a blind, married the 2[nd] respondent on 10.5.2009 as per customary rites. At that time, 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments were worn by her. The 1[st] petitioner is a post graduate and working as Professor in Political Science in Lady Sri. Ram College for Women, New Delhi. While they were residing together, the 1[st] petitioner ill-treated her both physically and mentally Crl.M.C.No.1006/13 2 demanding more amount as dowry. The other petitioners were also ill-treated her demanding more amount. In the circumstances, she left the matrimonial home and filed the above complaint. On the basis of that complaint, Sub Inspector of Police, Mankada police station registered the above crime and after investigation laid charge before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perinthalmanna. In the circumstances, the petitioners have approached this court to quash the proceeding in the above case by invoking the inherent jurisdiction. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the 2[nd] respondent is very poor and she has no financial background to pay any amount or gold. Considering that aspect, the 1[st] petitioner married her. The 1[st] petitioner is a visually disabled person and his mother is a cancer patient and there was no occasion for any ill-treatment as alleged by the 2[nd] respondent. According to the petitioners, she is short tempered and Crl.M.C.No.1006/13 3 does not listen the words of elders and other family members and she is very adamant in nature. She always gets angry, uses abusive language against the elders. She also shows disinterest in doing household work and she neglected her basic responsibility at her matrimonial home. In the circumstances, she cheated the 1[st] petitioner and deserted him and living with her parents. No incident as alleged in the complaint was occurred. There was no ill-treatment or any cruel behaviour was occurred from the side of the petitioners. All the allegations are false and hence it is necessary to interfere in this matter by invoking the inherent jurisdiction. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent strongly resisted the above contention and contended that the allegations, prima facie, show a case against the petitioners. The 1[st] petitioner is a visually disabled person and the 2[nd] respondent believed that he will look after her in her family life. She accepted the Crl.M.C.No.1006/13 4 proposal with great expectation. Finally, when she was living with the 1[st] petitioner in New Delhi, she was illtreated by him. Therefore, this is not a fit case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction. 4. According to Section 482 Cr.P.C. the inherent powers can be invoked for the three grounds mentioned thereunder. It can be used to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. In the _**State of Haryana** v_ . _**Bhajanlal**_ , the Supreme Court pointed out that: [1992 SCC ## (Crl) 426] “(1) Where the allegations in the FIR/complaint, even if they are taken at their face value do not prima facie constitute any offence against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the FIR of other materials do not constitute a cognizable offence justifying an investigation by the police under Section 156(1) of the code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2). (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR/complaint and the evidence collected thereon do not disclose the commission of any offence. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR/complaint do not constitute any cognizable offence but constitute only non-cognizable offence to which no investigation is permitted by the police without the order of Magistrate under Section 155(2). Crl.M.C.No.1006/13 5 (5) Where the allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Statute concerned (under which the proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the code or in the statute concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accuse with a view to spite him due to private and personal vengeance. 5. The facts and circumstances in this case show that there was allegation of ill-treatment by the 1[st] petitioner against the 2[nd] respondent. Petitioners 1 to 4 demanded more dowry and gold ornaments from the 2[nd] respondent. Moreover, they informed her that the 1[st] petitioner will get more beautiful lady as wife. In the circumstances, the 2[nd] respondent forced to get asylum in her parental house. Now she is residing with her parents. The petitioners have produced a petition filed by the 2[nd] respondent at the Mankada Police station, along with Annexure-A4. They have have also produced Crl.M.C.No.1006/13 6 Annexure-A5 scanning report and Annexure-A6 diary notes of the 2[nd] respondent. Annexure-A7 is the final report in the above crime. Considering the allegation, I am of the view that prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. If that be so, this is not a fit case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction. 6. While exercising inherent powers, this Court has no right to analyze the evidence, which is the responsibility of the trial court. Therefore, accepting the legal principle, I am of the view that inherent jurisdiction cannot be exercised in this case. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 1[st] petitioner is a blind and the 3[rd] petitioner is a cancer patient. Therefore, he seeks exemption from personal appearance in the trial court during trial. Annexure-A2 is the treatment certificate of the 3[rd] petitioner. Annexure-A2 shows that she is under treatment of Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Kochi. If that be the Crl.M.C.No.1006/13 7 position, any application for exemption from personal appearance of the 3[rd] petitioner is filed, the learned Magistrate shall consider that application and do the needful. With regard to the other petitioners, they are directed to appear before the trial court. It is also directed that if any petition in support of their defence for discharging or further exemption is filed, the learned Magistrate shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Crl.M.C. is disposed of as above. **P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.** acd Crl.M.C.No.1006/13 8 Crl.M.C.No.1006/13 9 **P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.** acd Crl.M.C.No.1006/13 10