Petitioners herein have been arrayed as accused 1 & 2 among the two

accused in the instant Crime No.824/2019 of Ernakulam Town North

Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under

Secs.324 & 34 of the IPC read with Sec.75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and

Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred for short as JJ Act).

2.

The prosecution case in short is that the 2^nd petitioner (A-2) had

secured her divorce from her 1^st husband on 09.11.2018, pursuant to

Annexure-3 proceedings on mutual consent basis and and the permanent

custody of the 8 year old minor son born to them has been granted to the

2^nd petitioner (A-2) subject to visitorial and weekend custody to the

divorced husband and that the said minor son aged 8 years born to the said

couple is the minor victim boy involved in this case. That the 1^st petitioner

herein (A-1) is a divorcee having two minor sons and a minor daughter and

the 1^st petitioner and the 2^nd petitioner (A-1 & A-2) had married on

02.05.2019, after the 2^nd petitioner had secured divorce, as aforestated and

thereafter petitioners 1 & 2 as well as the three children born to the

3

1^st petitioner through his first marriage and the minor victim boy aged

8 years born to the 2^nd petitioner through her first marriage are all residing

together. That the weekend custody of the minor victim boy was given to

the divorced husband of the 2^nd petitioner on 10.05.2019 and the minor

victim boy had informed him that the 1^st petitioner had pinched him on his

ear and had beated on his face, etc., pursuant to which the divorced

husband has given a complaint/FI Statement to the police on 11.05.2019

alleging the abovesaid offences, which has led to the registration of the

abovesaid crime.

3.

Heard Sri.Dinesh R.Shenoy, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners and Sri.Amjad Ali, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the

official respondents. Sri.S.Sachidananda Pai, learned Advocate, who is

appearing for the de facto complainant has also been heard as an

intervenor. Learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that the

2^nd petitioner had sacrificed her life for her minor son, who was born late in

her first marriage and that too after a series of infertility treatments and

that the 2^nd petitioner had even resigned a senior managerial position with

the HDFC bank only for the welfare of the minor boy and that the

petitioners could learn that the initial complaint given by the boy was that

the 1^st petitioner had slightly pinched on his ear, when he had raised the

throttle of the scooter to full speed, without the consent of the 1^st petitioner

4

only as a warning. Further that the minor victim boy is suffering from

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and requires treatment

and always requires the loving care of the mother and the abovesaid

allegations have been raised falsely only at the instance of her divorced

husband, as he cannot digest the idea of the 2^nd petitioner marrying the

1^st petitioner. Sri.S.Sachidananda Pai, learned counsel appearing for the de

facto complainant has seriously opposed the plea for anticipatory bail and

he had also submitted that the party has now given a separate application

before the Family Court to get the permanent custody of the child in view of

the abovesaid subsequent developments.

4.

After hearing the learned Advocate appearing for the accused

persons and the learned Advocate appearing for the de facto complainant

as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, this Court is of the considered

view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be necessary in

this case. Accordingly, the following directions and orders are passed:

(i)

Petitioners will immediately and personally appear before the

Investigating Officer in relation to the instant Crime No. 824/2019 of

Ernakulam Town North Police Station, for interrogation purposes, without

any further delay, at any rate by 10a.m. on any day on or before 24.07.20