The main legal point established is that criminal proceedings should not be initiated based on personal vendetta and must adhere to the proper procedures under the Cr.P.C., including the need for a preliminary enquiry in cases of abnormal delay in reporting criminal prosecution.

The prayer in this Criminal Miscellaneous Case instituted under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking invocation of the inherent powers conferred on this Court, as per that provision is for an order to quash the impugned Anxs.1 and 2 criminal proceedings to the extent the petitioner herein (A-2) is arrayed as accused therein.

2. The gist of the allegations in the impugned Anxs.1 and 2 criminal proceedings as made out in column No.12 of Anx.2 FIS is that accused No.1 and the defacto complainant (R-2 herein) were in love and that accused No.1 and accused No.2 (the petitioner herein, who is the father of accused No.1) had assured the 2nd respondent defacto complainant and her family that accused No.1 would marry R-2 and that accused No.1 had obtained five sovereigns of gold ornaments from defacto complainant (R-2) and that later accused No.2 violated this assurance to marry the defacto complainant and that thereby both the accused have committed the offence under Sec.420 of the I.P.C.

3. The allegation projected in Anx.1 complaint preferred by the defacto complainant (R-2) before the jurisdictional Magistrate's Court concerned (Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Thalassery) is that A-1 and R-2 were college mates while undergoing their course for LLB at the School of Legal Studies, Palayad Campus, Thalassery and that though accused No.1 belongs to Brahmin community (Namboothiri) and R-2 belongs to a lower caste community (Thiyya), A-1 had assured R-2 that he would certainly marry R-2 and that they were carrying on an intimate love affair while studying at the above said institution and that at some point of time A-2, who is A-1's father, had also conveyed that he has no objection in A-1 marrying R-2 and that in pursuance thereof, the family members of R-2 had proceeded for conducting marriage and that later, A-1 had obtained five sovereigns of gold ornaments from R-2, etc. That later, A-1 and A-2 informed R-2's family members that the family of A-1 including his mother are not willing for the above said marriage proposal as the boy's family belongs to an upper caste community and as the girl (R-2) belongs to a backward caste, etc. and that this has caused a lot of mental pain and agony to R-2 and her family, and that the accused have committed the offence of cheating (Sec.420 of the I.P.C.). With these allegations in Anx.1, R-2 had prayed before the jurisdictional Magistrate that directions may be given by the Magistrate to the Dharmadam Police Station to register a crime for offence under Sec. 420 of the I.P.C. against A-1 and A-2 and to investigate the same, etc.

4. In pursuance of the complaint filed as per A-1, the jurisdictional Magistrate had directed the Dharmadam Police authorities to register a crime for offence under Sec.420 of the I.P.C. and to investigate the same, etc. which led to the registration of the impugned Anx.2 FIS on 13.4.2015 (Crime No.304/2015 of Dharmadam Police Station) against A-1 and A-2 for offence under Sec. 420 of the I.P.C. It is these impugned criminal proceedings at Anxs.1 and 2 that are sought to be quashed by the petitioner, who is A-2, to the extent it involves him.

5. The main contention raised by Sri.T.Krishnanunni, learned Senior Counsel instructed by Sri.P.K.Mohanan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that even going by the allegations raised in Anx.1, it could be seen that no criminal culpability could be alleged against the petitioner herein (A-2). Further it is submitted that earlier the defacto complainant (R-2) had filed a petition before the State Women's Commission as per Anx.3 dated 3.12.2014, with regard to the above said incidents, in which, R-2 had clearly stated about the role of A-2, which does not disclose any criminal culpability. Therefore, it is contended that the version given in the impugned Anx.1 petition dated 4.4.2015 is in contradiction to the earlier version given in Anx.3 dated 3.12.2014. It is also pointed out by the learned c