RAMLA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, along with her brother, faces allegations, inter alia, under Sec.498A and 406 of the IPC. The proceedings were initiated on the basis of a final report submitted by the police. Investigation commenced on the basis of a private complaint filed by the complainant which was referred to the police by the learned Magistrate under Sec.156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of the final report. The 1st accused is said to be absconding. The 2nd accused contends that she had never resided with the spouses and that all the allegations are raised mala fide with vexatious intent. The 1st accused is absconding and to extract any undeserved advantages from the petitioner under the threat of criminal process, this complaint has been filed against the petitioner. It is, in these circumstances, prayed that the proceedings against the petitioner may be quashed by invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) I shall scrupulously avoid any detailed discussion or expression of opinion on the disputed facts in this order. Suffice it to say that I have been taken through the averments in the complaint.

(3.) In every case where discharge or acquittal of the accused is a possibility - even a real possibility, it is not for this Court to invoke the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. Ordinarily and normally the procedure prescribed by the Code will have to be followed and the accused concerned will have to claim discharge or acquittal as the case may be. The mere possibility of such discharge or acquittal cannot and will not persuade this Court to invoke the jurisdiction under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. This, I am satisfied, is an eminently fit case where the petitioner must claim discharge or acquittal as the case may be from the trial court.