Mariyam Beevi and Shamsudhin v. Station House Officer, Kongad Police Station, Palakkad District and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2008 / 1ST SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2766 of 2008 - ------------------------- - (TO QUASH CRIME NO.144 OF 2008 OF KONGAD POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 AND 3 --------------------------------------- 1. MARIYAM BEEVI, W/0. MARAKKAR, NOORJAHAN MANZIL. MANNAM P.O. N.PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. SHAMSUDHIN S/0.MARAKKAR, NOORJAHAN MANZIL. MANNAM P.O. N.PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KONGAD POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WOMENS CELL, PALAKKAD. 3. DY.S.P. OF POLICE, CRIME DETACHMENT, PALAKKAD 4. BALKEES, D/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, THAYIL HOUSE, MUNDOOR, PALAKKAD. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **R.BASANT, J.** **----------------------** Crl.M.C.No.2766 of 2008 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 23[rd] day of July 2008 ## **O R D E R** Petitioners are accused 2 and 3 in a crime registered alleging offences punishable inter alia under Section 498A I.P.C. They are the mother-in-law and brother-in-law respectively of the de facto complainant, the first accused being the husband of the de facto complainant. Crime has been registered on the basis of a complaint submitted by the de facto complainant before the Women Cell of Palakkad police district which complaint was looked into by the second respondent and on being satisfied with the complaint deserves action to be taken by the police he had forwarded the same to the first respondent for necessary action in accordance with law. It is on receipt of the complaint of the de facto complainant through the second respondent along with the observations of the second respondent in the enquiry conducted by him that the F.I.R was registered. Investigation is in progress. Petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. The petitioners have at this juncture come to this court with a prayer that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to quash the proceedings initiated against them in the crime. Crl.M.C.No.2766/08 2 2. What is the reason? The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the second respondent has already conducted an investigation and has come to the conclusion that the petitioners are guilty of the offence alleged. In these circumstances no fair investigation can be expected at the hands of the first respondent, submits the learned counsel for the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the allegations against the petitioners are totally false and are raised with vexatious intent by the de facto complainant who had lived in matrimony for the past about 13 years. I have anxiously considered the contentions raised. At the moment and with the available inputs it is not possible for this court to enter into any authentic finding about the acceptability of the allegation. At any rate, powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot at this juncture be invoked on the contention of the petitioners that the allegations are false. 3. The fact that the de facto complainant had approached the second respondent that is the Circle Inspector of Women Cell and the said Officer, after considering the allegations and making some preliminary enquiry, had chosen to Crl.M.C.No.2766/08 3 forward the complaint to the first respondent for necessary action is by itself not sufficient at all to sail to a conclusion that the F.I.R deserves to be quashed now invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I need only mention that the first respondent/ investigating officer cannot be a prisoner the conclusions/observations made by the second respondent in the report submitted by him and the investigating officer whoever he be must conduct a fair, proper and efficient investigation. The reason that the F.I.R was registered not on the basis of a complaint by the de facto complainant directly before the first respondent and that it was received by the first respondent through the second respondent along with his observations/notings is not, according to me, sufficient to justify invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. That contention also must hence fall to the ground. 4. Thirdly it is contended that the allegations in the complaint would reveal only that the alleged matrimonial cruelty was inflicted within the jurisdiction of North Paravur police station and not within the jurisdiction of Kongad police station where the crime has now been registered. It is not necessary for Crl.M.C.No.2766/08 4 me to express any opinion about the territorial jurisdiction of the first respondent to investigate the crime. If in the investigation it is revealed that not the Kongad police but the police of North Paravur alone has jurisdiction, the first respondent must certainly do the needful. Finally, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners may be permitted to surrender before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. There may be a direction to the learned Magistrate to consider the bail application on merits in accordance with law and expeditiously, it is submitted. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners prays that there may be a positive direction to release the petitioners on bail. I do not find any reason to interfere with the discretion of the learned Magistrate. It is for the petitioners to appear before the learned Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate, the circumstances under which they are entitled to be released on bail by the learned Magistrate. I find absolutely no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider the application for bail to be filed by the petitioners on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. No special or specific Crl.M.C.No.2766/08 5 directions appear to be necessary. Every court must do the same. No special or specific directions appear to be necessary. Sufficient general directions have been issued in Alice George vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1)KLT 339]. 4. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed but with the specific observation that if the petitioners surrender before the learned Magistrate and apply for bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. ## **(R.BASANT, JUDGE)** jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Crl.M.C.No.2766/08 6 Crl.M.C.No.2766/08 7 ## **R.BASANT, J.** CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008