Application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The petitioner, who is the accused in C.C No.715 of 2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Neyyattinkara, has come up under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to get all the proceedings in the said case, quashed.
3. Initially a crime was registered as Crime No.297 of 2012 of the Parassala Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 354 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal code. The second respondent herein was the de facto complainant.
4. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 28.02.2012 at about 07.30 p.m., he approached the de facto complainant in a drunken mood, caught hold of her hair, inflicted blows on her, fisted her and further he had cut and removed her hair. It has to be noted that the petitioner is the husband of the de facto complainant. It seems that they were in loggerheads for the last more than 15 years. The de facto complainant is residing in her own building situated in 50 cents of property which was given to her by her father at the time of her marriage. The name of the petitioner was also shown in the document. It was in that house where the petitioner had allegedly committed the aforesaid acts.
5. It seems that the Police had referred the matter as false. When the court below has accepted the refer report, the de facto complainant has chosen to file a private complaint in protest to the refer report.
6. The learned Magistrate has chosen to record the sworn statements of the complainant and two other witnesses produced by the complainant. Cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 354 and 506 (i) of the Indian Penal Code.
7. The petitioner had entered appearance before the court below and he has been enlarged on bail. On the next posting date, it seems that charges were framed and now the matter stands posted for evidence.
8. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has put forward an argument that the learned magistrate has not taken note of the contents of the refer report and also the materials produced along with the refer report, before taking cognizance of the matter.
10. It cannot be said that the learned Magistrate has not gone through the refer report as well as the materials produced along with the refer report. Necessarily, when the refer report has been accepted it implies that the learned Magistrate has gone through the refer report as well as the materials produced along with the refer report. It was when the learned Magistrate was dissatisfied with the refer report that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the complaint filed by the de facto complainant, in protest to the refer report. It cannot be said that the learned Magistrate has not considered the refer report as such.
11. On going through the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate as is evident from Annexure-A4, I do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety committed by the learned Magistrate. There is absolutely nothing at present to see that the learned Magistrate has misread the provisions of law and the learned Magistrate has committed any jurisdictional error or gross illegality in taking cognizance of the offences. The grounds taken up by the petitioner can well be raised by the petitioner during trial.
12. Matters being so, this Crl.M.C is devoid of merits, is only to be dismissed and I am doing so.
In the result, this Crl.M.C is dismissed.
B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE.
AS