wife files 498a after family court case compromised! hubby tries quash, still Kerala HC rejects quash !

Notes

• Wife comes back after family court case is compromised
• Leaves hubby after some months and files 498a !!
• Now hubby runs for quash
• HC refuses quash
• Tells hubby to go and fight case !!

thoughts

• How many times have we seen this ??
• wife says let us compromise
• Society and family pressurises man to take wife back
• Wife comes back
• Then FABRICATES more proof and goes and files a 498a case
• Typical criminalisation of matrimonial matters
• the tax payer foots the bill and the husband pays deadly
  
• 
  

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/29TH BHADRA 1934

Crl.MC.No. 3047 of 2012 ()
**************************
CC.NO.270/2012 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT*1.,KOTTAYAM
***************************************

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
*******************************************

SHAJI KURIAN,S/O. VARGHESE ABRAHAM,
CHAKKALAKUZHIYIL HOUSE,
VELLOOR, P.O. KOTTAYAM.

BY ADVS.SRI.V.G.ARUN
SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR


RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE :
**************************************************************

1. BEENA THOMAS,
D/O.T.J.THOMAS, KOCHUPARAMBIL,
KUZHIMATTOM P.O., PANACHIKKADU VILLAGE,
KOTTAYAM *PIN*686 533.

2. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN*KOCHI*682 031.

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.RANJITH


THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20*09*2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:



sts


APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

ANNEX -1 COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.21 OF 2012 DATED 11/01/2012

ANNEX -II COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-1, KOTTAYAM.

ANNEX -III COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT ALONG WITH STATEMENT OF WITNESSES IN CRIME NO.21 OF 2012 DATED 08/03/2012

ANNEX -IV COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.P.NO.1540 OF 2011 FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

ANNEX V COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.P.1541 OF 2011 FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.


RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:  NIL


/TRUE COPY/




S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
***********************************************
Crl.M.C.No.3047 of 2012
***********************************************
Dated this the 20th day of September, 2012


O R D E R



Petitioner is the accused in a pending case numbered as C.C.No.270 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Kottayam. He is being prosecuted for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code {for short "the IPC"}, on a report filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Pambadi Police Station.

Crime in the above case was registered on a complaint filed by the wife of the petitioner before the magistrate which was referred to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure {for short "the Code"}. After investigation final report was laid indicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC, and cognizance taken of such offence process was ordered to the accused.

Petitioner/accused has filed the petition contending that cognizance of the offence taken on the police report is based on false and frivolous allegations raised by the wife and, the criminal proceedings initiated against him are an abuse of the process of the court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that proceedings before the Family Court, previously initiated by the wife had been terminated on settlement reached by the parties. Subsequent to the termination of that proceeding, spouses lived together, but, later the wife leaving the petitioner/husband filed a frivolous complaint imputing cruelty against him, submits the counsel.

Allegations set out by the wife would not make out any offence under Section 498-A of the IPC and as such the criminal proceedings, on the basis of the report filed by the police are liable to be quashed invoking the inherent powers of this court under Section 482 of the Code, is the further submission.

2. After hearing the submissions made by the counsel and also looking into the materials produced, I find, this court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction cannot be called upon to scrutinise the materials gathered during the course of investigation by the police to find out whether any offence as imputed has been made out or not against the petitioner/accused, that too when a report, after such investigation under Section 173(2) of the Code has been laid before the magistrate. If at all the petitioner has got any sustainable ground to show that the charges imputed against him are groundless, then, he can canvass his plea of discharge before the magistrate as enjoined under Section 239 of the Code.

Reserving the petitioner's right to do so, petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

(S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN)

JUDGE

sk/-

//true copy//