IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.MC.No. 4251 of 2008() 1. ANOOP KUMAR K.S. ... Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA ... Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.C.K.VIDYASAGAR For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT Dated :07/11/2008 O R D E R R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4251 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of November 2008 O R D E R
The petitioner has come to this court with a twin prayer that a crime registered against him under Section 498A as also proceedings initiated against him under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act be quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2. The marriage between the petitioner and the third respondent was allegedly solemnized. The petitioner belongs to the Nair community whereas the third respondent belongs to the Scheduled Caste. The petitioner admits that the petitioner and the third respondent were intimate and were fiancees. But, according to him, no marriage as alleged has taken place. He, however, appears to concede that she was tricked to go before the local authority at Vadakkanchery Panchayat in Palakkad District and go through the motions of registration of the marriage. It is the contention of the petitioner that no marriage had at all taken place even though he admits that such a marriage has been registered at the Vadakkanchery Panchayat. Crl.M.C.No.4521/08 2
3. The third respondent/alleged wife filed the complaint before the police alleging that the petitioner had lost interest in her after the marriage and had treated her with cruelty. It was further urged that offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was committed by the husband against the wife. The petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail by this court. Investigation into that crime is in progress. Final report has not been filed yet. In the meantime, the third respondent has approached the learned J.F.C.M-Alathur with Crl.M.C.No.103/2008 under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. In that, she raised claims against the petitioner herein as also his father and mother. In such petition also, it is alleged by the third respondent that there has been a valid marriage between the petitioner and the third respondent. The petitioner has come to this court now with the prayer that the proceedings before the police (in crime) and before the learned Magistrate (under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act) may be quashed.
4. What is the reason? To summarise the crux of the contentions, the petitioner contends that there has been no valid marriage. Assertion of marriage made is false. Though a marriage has been registered, it does not represent the true state of affairs. The allegation of marriage and valid registration of marriage subsequently are all false and unjustified. Accepting the assertions of the petitioner that there has been no valid marriage, both proceedings may be quashed. This the gist of the prayer.
5. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Resolution of complicated question of facts cannot be undertaken by this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Whether a marriage has taken place or not between the parties who admittedly were fiancees earlier and whether the marriage, that is shown to have been registered admittedly at the Vadakkanchery Panchayat is true, valid and correct are all not questions which I can attempt to resolve in this proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I must assume that the police shall conduct proper investigation and complete the investigation at the earliest and file the final report in the crime. Crl.M.C.No.4521/08 4 I must also assume that the petitioner shall have fair and full opportunity to establish all his contentions before the learned Magistrate in the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
6. Suffice it to say that, at the moment and with the available inputs, it would be impossible nay impermissible for this court to embark on an enquiry to resolve that crucial question of fact which must legitimately be resolved in the crime and in the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act by the police/court concerned. I am not satisfied that there is any justification in the prayer for quashing of either of the two proceedings.
7. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. I may however, hasten to observe that I have not intended to express any opinion on the acceptability of the contentions raised. I have only chosen to take the view that those contentions cannot be resolved in this proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.4521/08 5 Crl.M.C.No.4521/08 6 R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008