SMITHA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by an order of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Aluva in returning the complaint instituted under Sec. 190 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner has moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-

(2.) Petitioner is the wife of the injured in a road traffic accident. It is alleged that on 16/10/2021, petitioner's husband- Thankachan, a carpenter by avocation, sustained injuries while proceeding to the place of work travelling on the pillion seat of the motor cycle bearing Registration No.KL-32/Q-0114 ridden by the accused, through Elamakkara-Puthukkalavattom Road; in front of Skyline Apartments, due to the rash and negligent riding as to endanger human life, since he had abruptly twisted, the vehicle capsized and her husband fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately rushed to the MAJ Hospital, Edappally. Ext.P1 indicates that Thankachan was taken there at 9.20 am on 16/10/2021 with the alleged history of road traffic accident. Ext.P2 discharge summary indicates that on the same day, he was taken to the Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Lisie hospital where he was admitted with the history of pain and swelling on left ankle following alleged history of road traffic accident. Diagnosis was fracture trimalleolar left ankle for which he underwent surgery on 19/10/2021 and was discharged on 21/10/2021. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite Ext.P1 intimation given by the CMO, MAJ Hospital to the Sub Inspector, Elamakkara Police Station, crime was not registered. It is alleged that on 11/11/2021, petitioner lodged a complaint before the City Police Commissioner, Ernakulam which also was not acted upon and thus, on 19/1/2022, she approached the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Aluva. It is specifically averred that after sustaining grievous injuries, her husband is in immobile stage and is under complete rest and thus, she approached the court alleging offences under Ss. 279, 337 and 338 IPC. But astonishingly enough, the complaint was returned stating that 'the petition was filed by the wife of the complainant'. The most disturbing aspect is that a note seen put on the last page of the complaint, as follows:-

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.