JAYACHANDRAN THEYYAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are accused 1 to 3 and they face indictment in a prosecution for offenceS punishable interalia under Section 498(A) read with 34 I.P.C. The proceedings were initiated on the basis of a private complaint filed by the defacto complainant - the wife of the first petitioner. It was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. After investigation, final report was filed by the investigating officer. Cognizance has been taken. The petitioners have already entered appearance. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate has already framed charges against the petitioners. The order framing charges remains unchallenged. The petitioners have now come to this court with the prayer that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

(2.) What is the reason? The learned counsel for the petitioners submits first of all that the allegations are all false. It is further submitted that the allegations raised are vexatious and are made because of the strain in the matrimonial relationship. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that there are contradictions between the versions of different witnesses and the witnesses examined by the prosecution are interested in favour of the defacto complainant. The counsel further submits that though the allegation is of physical cruelty also, no injuries are suffered by the alleged victim. He further points out that there is a long delay of eleven months in filing the private complaint and the said delay has not been explained satisfactorily. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the precise allegations raised in the final report do not completely support the allegations in the private complaint and the F.I.S.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in detail. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction that I am called upon to exercise. The Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C are sought to be invoked. This is an extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this court. Such jurisdiction is not to be invoked as a matter of course. Exceptional and compelling reasons must be shown to exist to justify invocation of such powers. Even the fact that the accused may be entitled to claim discharge or acquittal in the course of the trial, cannot persuade this court to invoke such inherent jurisdiction. It will be hazardous for a court to attempt to resolve the disputed questions of fact by invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.