Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

REMA DEVI, KOZHIKOTHU MADOM versus THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


REMA DEVI, KOZHIKOTHU MADOM v. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE - Crl MC No. 1279 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 9499 (5 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 1279 of 2007()

1. REMA DEVI, KOZHIKOTHU MADOM,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent

2. ASHA, D/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN, ' ANISURYA ',

For Petitioner :SRI.B.JAYASURYA

For Respondent :SRI.S.RAJEEV

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :05/06/2007

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J

Crl.M.C.No.1279 of 2007

Dated this the 5th day of June, 2007

ORDER

Petitioner is the 4th accused in a crime registered, inter alia, under Section 498 A read with 34 I.P.C. The other accused are the husband and the relatives of the husband of the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant filed a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate having jurisdiction. The learned Magistrate referred the complaint to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. After registration of the crime, the petitioner has rushed to this Court with a prayer that the F.I.R in so far as it relates to the petitioner, the 4th accused - the sister-in-law of the defacto complainant may be quashed.

2. What are the reasons ? Two reasons are attempted to be urged before this Court. First of all it is contended that there is the bar of limitation. Secondly it is contended that there are no sufficient allegations against the petitioner-the 4th accused. No other contentions are raised.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent/defacto complainant as also the learned Public Prosecutor oppose the application. It is first of all contended that it is too late to challenge the F.I.R now as the investigation has been completed and the final Crl.M.C.No.1279 of 2007 2 report has been filed long prior to the filing of the present Crl.M.C under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Final report alleging commission of the offence punishable, inter alia, under Section 498 A I.P.C has been submitted by the Investigating Officer; received and accepted by the learned Magistrate and process issued to all the accused persons. Such final report was filed and a case was filed as C.C.702 of 2006. This petition was admitted only on 24.04.2007.

4. Both the grounds do not appeal to me as sufficient to justify the invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Chapter XXXVI Cr.P.C contains provisions relating to the bar of limitation and the said bar applies only to the taking of cognizance by the court. There is no stipulation in Chapter XXXVI that conduct of investigation can be avoided on the plea of the period of limitation. In fact, Section 473 Cr.P.C conveys eloquently that even if there is a bar of limitation, on certain grounds, one of which is that, it is necessary so to do "to take cognizance" in the interests of justice, cognizance can be taken by the court even after the period of limitation. A proper investigation is hence absolutely necessary to decide whether in the interests of justice, cognizance ought to be taken despite the elapse of the period of limitation. So reckoned, I am unable to understand the stipulation in Chapter XXXVI Cr.P.C as sufficient to bar any investigation by the police. No provision contra has been brought to my notice also. Crl.M.C.No.1279 of 2007 3

5. The next plank on which the F.I.R is attacked is that there is no sufficient allegation against the petitioner, the 4th accused ("sister-in-law") in the F.I statement. I shall scrupulously avoid any detailed discussion on merits about the acceptability of the allegations against the petitioner or the credibility of the data collected, lest it might prejudice the interests of either party at later stages in the proceedings. Suffice it to say that on a careful reading of the F.I statement, I find no merit in the contention that there is such dearth of material allegations against the petitioner as to justify the invocation of the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C in favour of the petitioner to prematurely terminate the proceedings at the stage of F.I.R/investigation.

6. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that the dismissal of this Crl.M.C will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to challenge the result of the investigation or to raise all appropriate and relevant contentions before the learned Magistrate in the course of the trial.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

rtr/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.