IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1940

Crl.MC.No. 1430 of 2019

CRIME NO. 349/2019 OF NEMOM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED:

RAJASEKHARAN THAMPI, AGED 70 YEARS,
S/O STHANUNATHA PILLAI, GOKULAM, KARIMPARA ROAD,
PULIYOORKURICHI, THAKKALA P.O., KANYAKUMARI,
TAMIL NADU.

BY ADVS.
DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)
SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR
SRI.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM ABDUL SAMAD
SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM)
SRI.SABU PULLAN
SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN
SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN

RESPONDENTS/STATE, COMPLAINANT DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
NEMOM POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695020.

3 ANANTHALAKSHMI,
AMARAVATHY, THAMPURAN NAGAR, NEMOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695020.

SRI. AMJAD ALI – SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 1430 of 2019 2

ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

2. The petitioner herein is the accused in Crime No. 349 of

2019 of the Nemom Police Station. The aforesaid Crime has been

registered under Sections 498A r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

3. The de facto complainant is the wife of the 1 st accused in

the aforesaid Crime. The petitioner is his uncle. The prosecution

allegation is that on 12.9.2016, the 1 st accused married the de facto

complainant and thereafter, subjected her to cruelty and harassment

demanding dowry.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

contend that even a casual perusal of the FIR, which is produced as

Annexure-I, would reveal that there are no allegations to connect the

petitioner with the offence. According to the learned counsel, the he is

a septuagenarian, who is permanently settled at Velloor in Tamil Nadu

and he never even had an occasion to meet the de facto complainant

or interact with her. According to the learned counsel, the allegations

connecting the petitioner in the FI statement are extremely vague and
Crl.MC.No. 1430 of 2019 3

referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Preeti Gupta v. State

of Jharkhand [(2010) 7 SCC 667] as well as Bhaskarlal Sharma

another v. Monica [(2009) 10 SCC 604], it is submitted that the

proceedings are liable to be quashed.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. It is

submitted that the Crime was registered only on 6.2.2019 and the

investigation is in the early stages. According to the learned Public

Prosecutor, a perusal of Annexure-I complaint would show that

certain allegations are levelled against the petitioner herein as well.

As the investigation is in the initial stages, this Court will not be

justified in interfering with the same is the submission.

6. I have considered the submissions advanced. Terminating

criminal proceedings at the threshold itself, or at the stage of FIR is to

be exercised only in the rarest of rare cases and with great

circumspection. The Apex Court in a catena of decisions, consistently

has given a note of caution that inherent power of quashing a criminal

proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with

circumspection. It has been held that the High Court will not be

justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability or
Crl.MC.No. 1430 of 2019 4

genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the

complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer

an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims and

caprice.

7. Time and again, it has been emphasized by the Apex Court as

well as this Court that the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

would not permit the High Court to go into disputed questions of fact

or to appreciate the defence of the accused. The power to interdict a

criminal proceeding at the stage of investigation is even more rare.

Broadly speaking, a criminal investigation, unless tainted by clear

mala fides, should not be foreclosed by a Court of Law. In R. Kalyani

v. Janak C. Mehta and Others [(2009) 1 SCC 516], the Hon’ble

Supreme Court had occasion to reiterate that the inherent power

should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. Same view

was taken in Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana [(1977)

4 SCC 451], in Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka [(2008) 3

SCC 574] and most recently in Tilly Gifford Michael v. Floyd

Eshwar and Another (AIR 2017 SC 3823).

8. After having bestowed my anxious considerations to the
Crl.MC.No. 1430 of 2019 5

submissions advanced and having tested them in the light of the

binding and illuminating precedents of the Apex Court, I am of the

view that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for quashing the

criminal proceedings at the threshold itself. Furthermore, this Court

will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry to determine

whether the allegations in the FIR are likely to be established by

evidence. I see no reason to interfere with the criminal investigation at

this stage.

9. If the petitioner is in any way aggrieved, he will be at liberty

to raise his contentions after the filing of the final report.

This petition will stand dismissed.

SD/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,

JUDGE
IAP //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE
Crl.MC.No. 1430 of 2019 6

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME

NO.0349/2019 DATED 6.2.2019 OF NEMOM POLICE
STATION IN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY

RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:

NIL