IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN TUESDAY,THE28H DAY OF JANUARY20148TH MAGHA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 2692 of 2012 ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
IN CRA4112009 of 1ST ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE AGAINST THE ORDER
IN MC782009 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KUNNAMANGALAM ------------- PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ 1. SALIL DAVID CHEERAN, AGED35YEARS, S/O. M.M.CHEERAN, GROUP LEADER, GSS COMPANY LTD. R.M.Z. NEXT CAMPUS- 1.A. UNIT1011-2, FIRST FLOOR, WHITE FIELD ROAD, BANGALORE-560066.
2. IGNATIOUS WALTOR, AGED68YEARS, S/O. JOHN, MADATHIL HOUSE, KASABA AMSOM AND DESOM, PUTHIYARA, CALICUT-673004.
3. MRS. JANE CHEERAN, AGED75YEARS, W/O. M.M.CHEERAN, S/O. SALIL DAVID CHEERAN GROUP LEADER, GSS COMPANY LTD. R.M.Z. NEXT CAMPUS-1.A., UNIT1011-2, FIRST FLOOR, WHITE FIELD ROAD, BANGALORE-560066.
4. SUNIL ARTHUR CHEERAN, AGED40YEARS, S/O. M.M.CHEERAN, KASABA AMSOM AND DESOM NEAR SREEKANTESHWARAM TEMPLE ROAD, PUTHIYARA POST CALICUT-673004. BY ADVS.SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SRI.T.K.SANDEEP SRI.ARJUN SREEDHAR SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE(MULLAKKARIYIL) RESPONDENT(S)/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SHEENAPAUL, AGED30YEARS D/O. GODFFRED, 'SHEREENA', NELLIKODE VILLAGE KOVOOR DESOM, CHEVAYOOR P.O., KOZHIKODE-673017. PJ ...2/- ..2.. Crl.MC.No. 2692 of 2012 ---------------------------------- 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSEUCTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031, R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.T.SHEEBA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON2801-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PJ Crl.MC.No. 2692 of 2012 ---------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS ANNEXURE1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED0505-2009 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KUNNAMANGALAM AS M.C.NO. 78/2009. ANNEXURE II: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT
OF FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE DATED0502-2009. ANNEXURE III: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
IN M.C.NO. 78/2009 DATED0805-2009 OF THE LEARNED JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KUNNAMANGALAM. ANNEXURE IV: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
IN CRL. APPEAL NO. 411/2009 DATED2702-2010 OF THE LEARNED1T ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KOZHIKODE. ANNEXURE V: TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN M.C.NO. 78/2009 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KUNNAMANGALAM. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- NIL. / TRUE COPY / P.S.TO JUDGE PJ P.D.RAJAN, J ......................................... Crl.M.C.No.2692 of 2012 ......................................... Dated 28th January, 2014 ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing M.C.No.78 of 2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kunnamangalam, which is Annexure A1. The first respondent filed the above case under Section 12 of Protection Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 against the petitioners claiming different reliefs. The marriage between the first petitioner and first respondent was solemnized on 30.12.2005 at CSI Cathedral, Kozhikode and a child was born in the wedlock. While both of them were residing together, first respondent was physically and mentally harassed by the petitioners demanding more money and gold ornaments and she left the matrimonial home and thereafter filed Annexure A1 on 5.5.2009 before Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kunnamangalam. Crl.m.c.2692/2012 2 2. Before filing Annexure I complaint, first respondent had preferred O.P.No.893 of 2007 under Section 10(1)(x) of Indian Divorce Act for dissolution of marriage and O.P.No.155 of 2008 for return of gold ornaments before Family Court, Kozhikode. The first petitioner filed O.P.No.18 of 2008 for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 13 of Divorce Act. Family Court, by a common order, disposed of the above O.P.893 of 2007 and O.P.No.155 of 2008 and allowed O.P.No.18 of 2008 by virtue of Annexure II. Besides this, M.C.No.335 of 2008 was also filed for maintenance and Family Court awarded maintenance of Rs.2500/- to the first respondent and Rs.1500/- to the child.
3. Petitioners contended that first respondent foisted a false case against them by filing Annexure V before Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kunnamangalam. As there is no prima facie case, the Crl.m.c.2692/2012 3 learned counsel prays for interference by this court by invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
4. Heard both sides. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that if Annexure I is allowed, it will create multiplicity of proceedings and therefore, interference is necessary. Learned counsel appearing for first respondent contended that the present proceedings under Domestic Violence Act is a separate one and the relief sought as per Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 is not yet granted and adjudication is pending. Moreover, appeal is pending before this court and not finally disposed of.
4. Now the question that arise for consideration is whether Annexure A1 is to be quashed invoking the inherent jurisdiction at this stage. It is admitted by both parties that several litigations are pending between them in various courts. When various reliefs Crl.m.c.2692/2012 4 sought in the petitions are not finally decided, it is for the Magistrate concerned to decide it based upon the relevant provisions under the Statute. Since the final verdict is not pronounced, learned Magistrate could take decision only after disposal of the appeal which is pending before this court.
5. According to Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, this court can interfere and use its inherent power to prevent abuse of process of court, and thus the ends of justice can be secured, which is the main object under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Supreme Court in State of Haryana V. Bajanlal(1992 SC Crime 426) held that where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint 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, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.
6. As the matter in dispute is not finally decided, Crl.m.c.2692/2012 5 this court is not in a position to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate is at liberty to decide the matters in accordance with law except 16(4)(c) in Annexure I, against which appeal is pending before this court. Petition is disposed of as above. P.D.RAJAN, JUDGE lgk