KOSHY CHERIAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the sole accused in a prosecution under Sec.498A of the IPC. Proceedings have been initiated on the basis of a final report submitted by the police. Investigation commenced on the basis of a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent before the learned Magistrate which was referred by the learned Magistrate to the police under Sec.156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Altogether, there were three accused persons. The 1st accused is the husband of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd accused is the petitioner - father-in-law, and the 3rd accused is the mother-in-law of the 2nd accused. After investigation, the police came to the conclusion that the allegations against the 1st and 3rd accused are not sustainable and hence filed final report arraying the petitioner herein alone as an accused. The 2nd respondent has filed a private complaint reiterating the allegations raised by her in the First Information Statement.

(2.) The petitioner has come to this Court at this stage with a grievance that cognizance taken against him is bad in law and does deserve to be quashed. Inasmuch as no proper allegation of which the court can take cognizance subject to the law relating to limitation has been raised, cognizance taken is unsustainable and the prosecution deserves to be brought to premature termination, argues the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) I shall not encumber the records with any unnecessary observations. I am called upon to exercise the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. Such jurisdiction is to be invoked only sparingly and in exceptional cases in aid of justice. It is not to be invoked as a matter of course at all. Has justice failed? Is there miscarriage of justice? Is there abuse of process of the court? These are the considerations which will weigh with the court while considering the plea for premature termination of the proceedings by invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction.