Kerala High Court
Kunjupilla And Ors. vs Shylaja And Ors. on 16 June, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000CRILJ4113, II(2001)DMC89
Author: D. Sreedevi
Bench: D. Sreedevi
ORDER D. Sreedevi, J.
1. Petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 2 to 4 in C.C. No. 849/1998 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Karunagappally. Accused No. 1 is a BSF Jawan who is not available in station. Petitioner No. 1 herein is the father of the accused No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 herein is the sister of the 1st accused. Petitioner No. 3 is the husband of petitioner No. 2. Respondent No. 1 herein is the wife of accused No. 1.
2. The offence alleged against the accused by the first respondent herein is under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34, I.P.C. The first accused married the first respondent herein and they lived together and two children were born in that wedlock. The first respondent herein gave information to the police stating that she was being harassed by her in-laws, namely petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and also her husband who is accused No. 1 in the case.
3. Annexure-A is the F.I.R. Petitioners have filed this petition to quash C.C. No. 849/1998 initiated on the basis of Annexures-A and B on the file of the J.F.C.M., Karunagappally and to quash Annexures-A and B, F.I.R. and report submitted by the police on the various grounds alleged in the petition.
4. Mr. S.V. Balakrishna Iyer, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the said complaint has been filed by the first respondent with intent to harass the petitioners. According to him, it was the first respondent who had ill-treated the petitioners and she used to quarrel with the wife of the first petitioner. When the ill-treatment became unbearable, the first petitioner's wife committed suicide. It is also submitted that the F.I.R. does not make out a prima facie case. In Annexure-A the first respondent has stated that after the death of the mother-in-law her husband abused her and assaulted her while she was in her brother's house. It is also alleged that petitioners caused physical and mental torture to her. The statement of the first respondent itself is sufficient to show that there is a prima facie case to register the crime.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in Sub-section (2) after the expiry of the period of limitation. The period of limitation prescribed is three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. According to him, on going through the F.I.R. it can be seen that the ill-treatment started even just after the marriage which was solemnised on 27.3.1990. If that is accepted, the complaint has to be filed within 3 years from that date. On a reading of complete F.I.R., it can be seen that from 1990 onwards she has been put to harassment and harassment came to the extreme when the mother-in-law died. Thus, there is allegation of continuous ill-treatment. Therefore, I do not find any bar of limitation in initiating criminal proceedings under Section 498-A, I.P C.
6. Mr. P.C. Joseph has filed a counter-affidavit for and on behalf of the first respondent, wherein he has stated that after investigation the police laid the charge-sheet before the J.F.C.M. In the decision reported in Usha Ahuja v. State of Haryana, AIR 1999 SC 3242=III (1999) CCR 227 (SC)=VII (1999) SLT 382, the Apex Court held as follows :
"It is now well-settled that the width of power of the High Court under Section 382, Cr.P.C. in principle, is very expansive but in practice the power is exercised in exceptional cases. The inherent power of the Court is not an unrestricted power to make any order which the High Court desires to pass. The power is meant to be exercised to give effect to any order under Cr.P.C. or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."
In another decision reported in Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi, AIR 1999 SC 1216=II (1999) CCR 4 (SC)=II (1999) SLT 523, also the Apex Court held as follows :
"It is not necessary that a complainant should verbatim reproduce in the body of his complaint all the ingredients of the offence he is alleging. Nor is it necessary that the complainant should state in so many words that the intention of the accused was dishonest or fraudulent. Splitting up of the definition into different components of the offence to make a meticulous scrutiny spelled out in the complaint, is not the need at this stage. If factual foundation for the offence has been laid in the complaint the Court should not hasten to quash criminal proceedings during investigation stage merely on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated with details, for quashing the FIR (a step which is permitted only in extremely rare cases), the information in the complaint must be so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence."
The Apex Court in the decision reported in State of Kerala v. O.C. Kuttan, 1999 (1) JT (SC) 486=I (1999) CCR 110 (SC)=II (1999) SLT 224, held as follows :
"The power of quashing the criminal proceedings should be exercised very sparingly with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases, that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegation made in the F.I.R. or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice. It is too well-settled that the First information report is only an initiation to move the machinery and to investigate into a cognizable offence and, therefore, while exercising the power and deciding whether the investigation itself should be quashed, utmost care should be taken by the Court and at that stage it is not possible for the Court to sift the materials or to weigh the materials and then come to the conclusion one way or the other."
7. The respondents made out a prima facie case as seen in Annexure-A. It is also submitted that the police, after investigation, submitted a charge-sheet before the Trial Court. Therefore, in the light of the above decision of the Apex Court, I do not find any reason to quash F.I.R. and also the subsequent proceedings as the power to quash FIR can be exercised only in rarest of rare cases. It is submitted that the first petitioner is very old and is partially blind. Learned Counsel for the first respondent denied the said statement.
8. It is submitted that the first accused has not so far appeared before the Trial Court. Therefore, while disposing of this case, I direct accused Nos. 1 and 2 to appear before the Trial Court and apply for bail. The Trial Court may consider the same favourably. The personal appearance of accused Nos. 1 and 2 can be dispensed with to the maximum extent possible, as the first accused is very old and the second accused is a BSF Jawan. The Trial Court may dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible.
This Crl.M.C. is disposed of as above.