CRL.MC No. 3116 of 2012 · Kerala High Court

Crl.MC.No. 3116 of 2012 (D) APPENDIXPETITIONERS' ANNEXURES :ANNEXURE A1 :CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET (CRIME 870/2011 OFVALAPPAD POLICE STATION) FILED AS C.C. 621/2012 ON THE FILE OF J.F.M.C. KODUNGALLOOR.ANNEXURE A2 :TRUE COPY OF MARRIAGE INVITATION PRINTED BY THE PETITIONERS FOR RECEPTION OF THE MARRIAGE ON 15.07.2011 BETWEEN 3 TO 5 P.M. IN THE UNNIREE MEMORIAL HALL, CHAVAKKAD.ANNEXURE A3 :TRUE COPY OF LAWYER NOTICE SENT BY Sri. T.RAMACHANDRAN ADVOCATE CALLING FOR TO PAY COMPENSATION AND WITHDRAWAL OF MARRIAGE ON 13.7.2011.RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES :NIL.// TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE DMR/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,J.---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. NO. 3116 of 2012----------------------------------------Dated this the 08th day of October, 2012ORDERPetitioners are two among the accused in a case pending trial on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodungalloor. They are being prosecuted with another for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 417 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Petitioners are the parents of One Sumesh whose marriage with one Sruthilaya was fixed and arranged by the families on both sides. Engagement for such marriage also followed with ring exchange. However two days before the marriage,a notice was issued from the side of the bride demanding compensation alleging that the bridegroom and his parents raising unlawful demand of dowry had withdrawn from the marriage. A complaint to the police followed which led to registration of a crime for the offence under the Dowry Crl.M.C. NO. 3116 of 20122Prohibition Act, and after investigation indictment of the petitioners and their son for offences stated supra. Theabove petition has been filed to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners in the case invoking the inherent powers of this court under Section 482 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure, for short the 'Code'.2. I heard the learned counsel for petitioners and also the learned Public Prosecutor.

Allegations imputed against the petitioners and their son to proceed against them for the offences imputed are baseless, unfounded and absolutely false, is the submission of the counsel submitting that they too have made arrangement for conducting the marriage and also later a reception inviting close friends and relatives. A story of unlawful demand for dowry was invented with the connivance of the marriage broker and it has no basis at all, is the further submission of the counsel. Adverting to the notice sent through advocate by the father of the bride, it is contended that the allegations imputed Crl.M.C. NO. 3116 of 20123thereunder are bereft of any truth. This court in exercise ofits jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code cannot becalled upon to examine the correctness of the allegations imputed in an advocate notice nor over the materials gathered by the investigating agency in a crime to test thesustainability of a report indicting a person of an offence.

That section of the Code is primarily intended for passing of orders by this court to give effect to the orders under the Code or to prevent abuse of process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice. Where a final report has been filed by the police in a crime after investigation, assertion made by the person proceeded against to assail the indictment levelled banking upon one or other documents connected with the crime would not be sufficient to hold that the prosecution proceeded against him amounts to an abuse of process of the court. Whatever defences available to the person proceeded against, no doubt, can be canvassed by him before the magistrate in the case. I find this is not a fit case Crl.M.C. NO. 3116 of 20124warranting invoking of the inherent powers of this court, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Crl.M.C. is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE.DMR/-