MARY VINCENT vs STATE OF KERALA

The relief the petitioner seeks is to quash a criminal

prosecution against her. She seeks the relief under Sec.482 of

Cr.P.C.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned

counsel for the second respondent and the learned public

prosecutor.

Petitioner''s son married the second respondent. The

latter filed annex-A complaint against her husband and mother-in-

law. Commission of an offence under Sec.498A of IPC is alleged in

the complaint. The learned magistrate forwarded the complaint to

the police under Sec.156(3) of Cr.P.C . Annex-B FIR was

registered. Annex-C final report was filed. Cognizance was taken.

The case is pending before the court of the Judicial Magistrate-I,

First Class, Peerumedu as C.C. 307/2016. The petitioner is the

second accused. Her son who is the husband of the second

respondent is the first accused. All proceedings against the

petitioner in C.C.307/2016 are sought to be quashed.

The petitioner contends that all the allegations against

her in annex-A complaint are false. She contends that annex-C

final report was filed without proper investigation. I read annex-A

complaint. There are allegations against the petitioner including

an alleged incident of she slapping on the face of the second

respondent. Therefore forwarding of the complaint under Sec.156

(3) of Cr.P.C and taking of cognizance on receipt of the final report

cannot be found fault with. Correctness or otherwise of the

allegations against the petitioner is a matter for evidence. It is for

the trial court to consider it. This court in a proceedings under

Sec.482 of Cr.P.C is not expected to consider the merit and

demerit of each allegation in the complaint against the petitioner.

No material is available for this court to hold that all the

allegations against her are per se false or that the investigation

was not properly conducted.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the complaint was filed and cognizance was taken on the final

report after the expiry of the period of limitation. No such ground

is taken in the memorandum of Crl.M.C. However, I shall consider

the submission.

The only offence alleged against the petitioner is the  one under Sec.498A of IPC . The punishment provided for the said

offence is imprisonment for a term which may extend to three

years and fine. The period of limitation provided by Sec.468 (2)

(c) of Cr.P.C for such an offfence is three years. The learned

counsel for the petitioner submitted that the third respondent

went to her house in December 2011, but annex-A complaint was

not filed within three years thereafter. Annex-A is dated

6.10.2015. The learned counsel for the third respondent

submitted that annex-A would refer to an incident of harassment

in September, 2015 and therefore the complaint was filed and

cognizance was taken within the period of limitation. This

dispute between the parties is also a pure question of fact and a

matter for evidence. The trial court is the court to decide that

dispute based on the evidence let in.

Let it be a case where cognizance was taken after the

period of limitation. Sec.473 of Cr.P.C permits taking of

cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of

limitation if the court is satisfied on facts and in the circumstances

of the case that the delay has been properly explained or that it is

necessary so to do in the interests of justice. An explanation is offered in annex-A complaint. The explanation is that the

disputes were attempted to be mediated. Whether the

explanation is sufficient or satisfactory or whether the interests of

justice demand taking of cognizance even beyond the period of

limitation is also a matter for the learned magistrate to decide.

Let the trial court take a decision on such matters.

No ground exists to quash the prosecution against the

petitioner. The criminal miscellaneous case is therefore liable to

be dismissed.

Dismissed.