High Court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of the charge sheet under Section 498A IPC. The court held that the trial court is the appropriate forum to decide guilt and inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are sparingly exercised.
Petition to quash the charge sheet under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2009 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1393 of 2006() ------------------------OP(GW).487/2005 of FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM CRIME NO.699/04 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION ....................
PETITIONER: ACCUSED:
ALI HASSAN, AGED 57, (RETIRED A.E.O), S/O.MOHAMMED MUSTHAFA, RAWTHAR, RESIDING AT M.M.HOUSE, EDATHARA, KALANGOOR, PATHANAPURAM VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM.
BY ADV. SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR
RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.2442/06 IN CRL.M.C.NO.1393/06
//DISMISSED//
23.3.09 SD/-M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.
TRUE COPY
P.A.TO JUDGE
M.C.HARI RANI, J.
-----------------------------------------------------
CRL.M.C.No.1393 OF 2006
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF MARCH, 2009
O R D E R
The petitioner herein is the accused in C.C.No.273/04 pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam, for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash Annexure A3 charge sheet filed against him in Crime No.699/04 of Kollam East Police Station registered at the instance of the first respondent herein as the defacto complainant, who is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner herein.
-2-
CRL.M.C.No.1393/06
the power of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., which can be exercised only sparingly, to meet the ends of justice. The learned counsel has relied on the decision reported in Renu Kumari v. Sanjay
Kumar (2009(1) SCC (Crl.)426 ), wherein it is held that allegation of mala fides against informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceedings initiated under Section 498A by invoking the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
-3-
CRL.M.C.No.1393/06
which was filed on 11.11.2005 and is pending before the Family Court, Kollam as GW(OP)No.487/05. Annexure A2 is the copy of the petition, O.P.No.49/06 filed by the first respondent and her children against the petitioner herein, before the Family Court, Kottarakkara claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- each per month. Annexure A4 is the copy of the order dated 27.10.2004 in Bail Application No.6183/04 filed by the petitioner herein before this Court for granting anticipatory bail in his favour in Crime No.699/04 of Kollam East Police Station. Annexure A5 is the copy of the FIR in Crime No.414/05 of Kollam West Police Station registered on 17.12.2005 for the offence under sections 341, 506(i), 295(b), 324 and 34 of IPC. One of the ground stated in this petition filed by the petitioner is that he is intending to have an amicable settlement with the first respondentwife and he earnestly decides to have a re-union considering the life of his two daughters.
-4-
CRL.M.C.No.1393/06
under Section 498A, etc. are incorrect.
“9. Exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in a case of this nature is the exception and not the rule. The Section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of Cr.P.C. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction
-5-
CRL.M.C.No.1393/06
may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under Cr.P.C. (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction.”
In the circumstances, I find that there is no merit in this petition and there is no ground to exercise the inherent jurisdiction of this Court as envisaged under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. This petition is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the Crl.M.C. is dismissed.
M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.
dsn
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash the criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. regarding allegations under Section 498A IPC.
Whether the allegations of mala fides against the informant are sufficient grounds for quashing the charge sheet.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Renu Kumari v. Sanjay KumarReferred¶29
(2009(1) SCC (Crl.)426) · Who else cites this
Renu Kumari v. Sanjay KumarReferred¶40
(2009(1) SCC (Crl) 426) · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ali Hassan
Anitha
State of Kerala
M.C. Hari Rani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
M.C. Hari Rani
Parties & counsel
