null

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2014/12TH CHAITHRA, 1936 Crl.MC.No. 1922 of 2012 () --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 972/2011 of J.M.F.C.,ALATHUR CRIME NO. 812/2011 OF ALATHUR POLICE STATION , PALAKKAD PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 TO 5 : ------------------------------------------- 2. ABDUL RAHIMAN AGED 70 YEARS S/O. PARIYAKUTTY, KOMATHUPARAMBIL (H), VAVULLIYAPURAM AMSOM DESOM, ALATHUR TALUK. 3. FATHIMA BEEVI AGED 65 YEARS W/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN, KOMATHUPARAMBIL (H) VAVULLIYAPURAM, AMSOM DESOM, ALATHUR TALUK. 4. PYARIJAN W/O. BASHER, ZUBEIDA MANZIL, COURT ROAD ALATHUR. 5. BASHEER S/O. ABDUL SATHAR, ZUBEIDA MANZIL, COURT ROAD ALATHUR. BY ADVS.SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/STATE: -------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. ZEENATH W/O. SALIM, KOMATHUPARAMBIL (H), VAVULLIYAPURAM AMSOM DESOM, ALATHUR TALUK-678403. RR2 BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. RR2 BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.REJI JOSEPH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 0204-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **P.D.RAJAN, J.** **----------------------------------Crl.M.C. NO.1922 of 2012 -----------------------------------------** Dated this the 2[nd ] day of April, 2014 ## ORDER This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash Annexure A1 complaint, Annexure A3 Final Report in Crime No.812/2011 of Alathur Police station for the offence punishable u/s.498(A) r/w section 34 IPC by invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court. 2. Petitioners are father, mother, sister and brother in-law of one Salim, who is the husband of 2[nd] respondent in Annexure A1. The above case was filed before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alathur by the 2[nd] respondent and from there it was forwarded to Alathur Police station for investigation u/s.156(3) Cr.P.C and after investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police, Alathur laid a charge before Judicial First class Magistrate Court, Alathur. Petitioners contended that they are intentionally and falsely implicated in a serious case. 2 3. The 2[nd] respondent's allegation in the Judicial first Class Magistrate, Alathur was that one Salim, son of the 1[st] accused in the above case married her on 19.11.2000 at Kuthanoor School as per religious rites and custom prevailing in Muslim community. At the time of the marriage, 25 sovereigns of gold and Rs.30,000/- were given as her share. After the marriage, both of them resided together in the matrimonial house and while residing so, the accused 1 to 4 demanded more amount as dowry and ill-treated her both physically and mentally. Subsequently, the husband of the 2[nd] respondent went abroad and accused 2 to 4 continued the ill-treatment. In the circumstance, petitioner filed Annexure A complaint. Hence this petition. 4. Heard both sides. The inherent jurisdiction under 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked to prevent abuse of process of 3 any or to secure interests of justice. Normally, in a case High Court would not conduct an enquiry with regard to the evidence in question in disputed case for invoking inherent jurisdiction. In matrimonial cases, it shall meticulously analyse the situations in which the allegation was made against the parties. Apex Court _**In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab**_ , [AIR 1960 SC 866] considered the circumstances in which the High Court can, by invoking its inherent powers, quash the criminal proceedings of a subordinate criminal court. The Supreme Court observed thus: “It is well established that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Ordinarily criminal proceedings instituted against an accused person must be tried under the provisions of the Code, and the High Court would be reluctant to interfere with the said proceedings at an interlocutory stage. It is not possible, desirable or expedient to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of this inherent jurisdiction. However, we may indicate some categories of cases where the inherent jurisdiction can and should be exercised 4 for quashing the proceedings. There may be cases where it may be possible for the High Court to take the view that the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused person may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice. If the criminal proceeding in question is in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by an accused person and it manifestly appears that there is legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceeding on that ground. Absence of the requisite sanction, for instance, furnish cases under this category. Cases may also arise where the allegations in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged, in such cases no question of appreciating evidence arises; it is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the first information report to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not. In such cases, it would be legitimate for the High Court to hold that it would be manifestly unjust to allow the process of the criminal court to be issued against the accused person. A third category of cases in which the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be successfully invoked may also arise. In cases falling under this category the allegations made against the accused person do constitute and offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. In dealing with this class of cases it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is manifestly and 5 clearly inconsistent with the accusation made and cases where there is legal evidence which on its appreciation may or may not support the accusation in question. In exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not. That is the function of the trial magistrate, and ordinarily it would not be open to any party to invoke the High Court's inherent jurisdiction and contend that on a reasonable appreciation of the evidence the accusation made against the accused would not be sustained. Broadly stated that is the nature and scope of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 in the matter of quashing criminal proceedings, and that is the effect of the judicial decisions on the point”. 5. The allegation of the 2[nd] respondent in Annexure A1 is that accused A1 to A4 ill-treated her physically and mentally. Nothing was stated as to what type of ill-treatment and mental torture was suffered by her. Moreover, in Annexure A1, A2, A3 and in her additional statement, the specific overt act has not been mentioned against the father in-law, but in Annexure A1 it was alleged that the mother in- 6 law caught hold of her and sister in-law caught hold of her hair. It is found in her petition that she obtained an order under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act in M.C.No.71/2011 from Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alathur. In order to attract Section 498(A) IPC the defacto complainant has to allege that the husband or relatives of the husband subjected her to cruelty which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman. Moreover, harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. No specific averment is made against 7 the father in-law and the mother in-law and prima facie case is not made out against them. But the allegation towards A1 and A4 is a matter of evidence, I am of the view that prima facie case is made out against accused 1 and 4 and the 2[nd] respondent is at liberty to proceed against them. In the circumstance, I quash the proceedings against accused 2, 3 and 5 invoking inherent jurisdiction. Petition is partly allowed. The Lower Court is directed to proceed against accused 1 and 4. ## **P.D.RAJAN,JUDGE** pm