Rani M. John v. Mary George and State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/30TH MAGHA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1302 of 2013** ## **----------------------------------** ## **AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 70/2013 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III, PUNALUR** **----------** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.4:** **----------------------------------------------** **RANI M. JOHN, W/O. JIJU JOHN, (D/O. DR.K.C.JOHN), NO.3, 1ST CROSS, BHARATHI LAYOUT, SUDDUGUNTEPALYA DRC POST, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA NOW RESIDING AT TORONTO, CANADA.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE :** **----------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. MARY GEORGE** **D/O. K.Y.GEORGE, COMPANY PUTHEN VEEDU, KARAVALOOR P.O. PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUNALUR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **3. STATE OF KERALA , REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **R1 BY ADVS. SRI.C.PRATHAPACHANDRAN PILLAI SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR SRI.SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL R2,3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.REJI JOSEPH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **PJ** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1302 of 2013** ## **----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE A1 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CMP NO.2654/2012 FILED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, PUNALUR.** **ANNEXURE A2 : COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC 70/13 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, PUNALUR.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **---------------------------------------** **NIL.** **/ TRUE COPY /** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **PJ** ## **P.D. RAJAN, J.** ------------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.1302 of 2013 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 18[th] day of January, 2014 ## **ORDER** This petition is filed U/s.482 Cr.P.C. to quash AnnexureA2 final report in C.C.No.70/2013 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Punalur. The petitioner is the 4[th] accused in the above case, which was filed U/Ss.420 and 498A r/w. 34 IPC. The 1[st] respondent filed Annexure-A1 complaint in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Punalur, which was sent over to the Punalur police station for investigation U/s.156 (3) Cr.P.C. and after completing investigation, S.I. of Police, Punalur filed a final report in the JFMC-III, Punalur. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court to quash Annexure-A2 invoking the inherent jurisdiction. 2. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the Crl.M.C.No.1302./13 2 petitioner contended that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner in Annexures-A1 and A2. A vague allegation made in Annexure-A1 is not sufficient to attract offence punishable U/s.498A IPC. The Police after detailed investigation, did not charge sheet the petitioner for any other offence except Sections 420 and 498A r/w 34 IPC. The vague allegations in Annexures-A1 and A2 and facing trial on the basis of that allegation are mere abuse of process of the Court. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this is a fit case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction to quash the final report. The learned counsel relied decisions in _**Geeta Mehrotra and another**_ v. _**State of Uttar Pradesh and another**_ [(2012) 10 SCC 741], (para 20, 21 & 22), _**Ramesh and others**_ v. **State of T.N** . [(2005) 3 SCC 507], _**B.S. Joshi**_ v. _**State of Haryana**_ [AIR 2003 SC 1386] and _**G.V. Rao**_ v. _**L.H.V. Prasad**_ [2000(3) SCC 693]. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent strongly resisted the above contention and Crl.M.C.No.1302./13 3 contended that the allegations made in Annexures-A1 and A2 show specific offence against the petitioner and other accused in the above case. Since the matter is pending before the trial court, only after appreciation of the evidence by a full fledged trial, those documents and oral evidence can be analysed. Therefore, before analysing the evidence, interference in the final report at the threshold itself would cause miscarriage of justice to the defacto complainant. The learned Public Prosecutor also supported the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent and opposed the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Now the question that arises for consideration is whether this is a fit case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction to quash Annexure-A1. Relied decision of the Apex Court in _**Preethi Gupta**_ v. _**State of Jharkhand**_ [AIR 2010 SC 3363]. The 1[st] respondent filed the above complaint in the trial court alleging matrimonial offence against her husband and in-laws U/Ss.498A and 420 r/w. 34 IPC. 4 Crl.M.C.No.1302./13 The 1[st] respondent contended that her husband was met with an accident and now he is handicapped. Suppressing that fact, the marriage was solemnized. Moreover, the gold ornaments and Rs.5 lakh entrusted to the in-laws were misappropriated. All these facts are mentioned in Annexure-A1 complaint. But, the investigating agency reported the offence U/Ss.498A and 420 alone against the petitioner. There was also allegation against the petitioner that when the 1[st] respondent's father-in-law attempted to rape her and that was informed to other in-laws, the petitioner assaulted her by holding her hair and intimidated and threatened her that if she discloses the same to anybody else, she will kill her. In the final report, it is not clear whether those facts were enquired by the investigating officer. Analyzing those aspects is the primary responsibility of the trial Magistrate. When prima facie case is made out, it is the responsibility to proceed to the facts alleged in the complaint. The inherent powers of the High Court contemplated u/s 482 Crl.M.C.No.1302./13 5 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised only for the three purposes mentioned in the Section. This power cannot be invoked naturally in a matter where it is covered by a specific provision of the code. In the _**State of Haryana**_ V. _**Bhajanlal,**_ [1992 SCC (Crl) 426] the Supreme Court pointed out that: “(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). (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.” 6 Crl.M.C.No.1302./13 5. I have considered all decisions relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the complaint and the final report, serious allegations are made against the husband and in-laws of the 1[st] respondent. The specific allegation in the complaint is with regard to assaulting the 1[st] respondent. In such a situation, when prima facie case is made out against the petitioners, this is not a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. Having regard to the facts and history of the allegation, it is a matter of evidence. The petitioner has to appear before the trial to take all his defence. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction and it is dismissed accordingly. ## **P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.** acd Crl.M.C.No.1302./13 7 Crl.M.C.No.1302./13 8