SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mrs.Dew Ann Jose vs Station House Officer on 9 October, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 17TH ASWINA, 1941

WP(C).No.26597 OF 2019(Y)

PETITIONER:

MRS.DEW ANN JOSE, AGED 26 YEARS,
W/O. PINTO ELAVATHINGAL ANTO,
RESIDING AT “AISWARYA”, MAMOOTTIL HOUSE,
ULLAYAMBILLY ROAD, NORTH PARAVOOR P.O.,
NORTH PARAVOOR VILLAGE, NORTH PARAVOOR TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 513.

BY ADVS.
SRI.AJEESH S.BRITE
SMT.TINTU MOL P.R.

RESPONDENTS:

1 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA-682031.

2 CHAIRMAN,
FAMILY WELFARE COMMITTEE,
DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX,
AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680 003.

SRI.T.R.RENJITH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
———————————-
W.P.(C) No. 26597 of 2019
———————————-
Dated this the 9th day of October, 2019

JUDGMENT

The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:

i. A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ
order or direction calling for records leading to Exhibit P1
and P2 and directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of
Exhibit P1 complaint within a time frame.
ii. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this
Hon’ble Court may pleased to grant in the circumstances of
the case.”

2. Heard Sri.Ajeesh S.Brite, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner, and Sri.T.R.Renjith, learned Prosecutor

appearing for the respondents.

3. According to the petitioner, she has submitted Ext.P-1

petition/complaint dated 23.12.2017 before 1st respondent Station

House Officer, Irinjalakuda, alleging that the petitioner’s husband

has committed offence as per Sec.498A of the SectionIPC, etc.

4. It appears that, 1st respondent has forwarded Ext.P-1

petition to 2nd respondent Family Welfare Committee, as shown in

Ext.P-2 receipt, and it is also now informed to the petitioner as

per Ext.P-3 the Right to SectionInformation Act proceedings dated

4.6.2019 that Ext.P-1 petition is still pending before

2nd respondent Family Welfare Committee.
W.P.(C) No. 26597 of 2019

..3..

5. Sri.T.R.Renjith, learned Prosecutor appearing for the

respondents would submit that Ext.P-1 petition was filed at a time

when the directives are given by the Apex Court in the judgment in

SectionRajesh Sharma and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

[2017 (4) KHC 163 AIR 2017 SC 3869] was in vogue,

and later a three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in

SectionSocial Action Forum for Manav Adhikar and Another v.

Union of India, Ministry of Law and Justice and Others

[2018 (4) KHC 580 AIR 2018 SC 4273] has modified the

abovesaid directives issued by the Apex Court earlier in

Rajesh Sharma’s case supra and that therefore, the said

Committee is no longer competent to consider Ext.P-1 petition.

6. The counsel for the petitioner also does not seriously

dispute the abovesaid legal position canvassed by the learned

Prosecutor. However, the counsel for the petitioner would point

out that, if that be so, it is the bounden duty of 1 st respondent SHO

to consider and examine Ext.P-1 petition/complaint on merits and

if any cognizable offence is disclosed therein, it is the the

bounden duty of 1st respondent SHO to register a crime.
W.P.(C) No. 26597 of 2019

..4..

7. Accordingly it is ordered that, since Ext.P-1 petition has

already been forwarded by the SHO to the 2 nd respondent, the

petitioner will be at liberty to file yet another petition on the

abovesaid subject matter before 1st respondent SHO without any

further delay, and thereupon the SHO will examine the contentions

of the petitioner, and if any cognizable offence is made out therein,

it is for 1st respondent SHO to act in the manner in accordance with

law, if necessary after getting necessary legal advice from the

prosecution directorate, if it is so warranted. The 1 st respondent

will take action in the abovesaid matter within one month from

the date of receipt of petition that may be filed by the petitioner in

that regard. The petitioner will ensure that a copy of this judgment

may also be forwarded along with the petition to be filed by her

before the 1st respondent SHO.

With these observations and directions, the above Writ

Petition (Civil) will stand disposed of.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS,
JUDGE
MMG
W.P.(C) No. 26597 of 2019

..5..

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED
BEFORE THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION DATED
23.12.2017

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR THE
ANNEXURE-I COMPLAINT

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED
04.06.2019 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER
THE RIGHT OT INFORMATION ACT

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation