Alice James and Maryamma James v. State of Kerala and Maria James @ Minnu

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN** ## **FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2014/21ST CHAITHRA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2218 of 2012 ()** **--------------------------CC NO. 532/2010 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PALA CRIME NO. 1086/2010 OF PALA POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM** **------------------** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED :** **---------------------------------------** ## **1. ALICE JAMES** - **AGE 22 YEARS, D/O.P.J.JAMES POTHANIKKAD (UNNUPPATT), BLOCK OFFICE ROAD KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** ## **2. MARYAMMA JAMES,** **W/O.P.J.JAMES POTHANIKKAD (UNNUPPATT) HOUSE, BLOCK OFFICE ROAD KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRA KRISHNAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/STATE :** **--------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA** **REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031 (CRIME NO.1086/2010 OF PALA POLICE STATION KOTTAYAM DISTRICT)** ## **2. MARIA JAMES @ MINNU, AGED 25 YEARS** - **D/O.JAMES, KATTAKKAYAM HOUSE VELLIYEPPALLI P.O.- 683580, PALA,** - **MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. REJI JOSEPH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-04-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Mn** **...2/-** **Crl.MC.No. 2218 of 2012 ()** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES :** **ANNEXURE I : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PALA DATED 18.9.2010.** **ANNEXURE II COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO. 1086/2010 OF PALA POLICE, KOTTAYAM. ANNEXURE III COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 1086/2010 OF PALA POLICE, KOTTAYAM.** ## **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES : NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE Mn** ## **P.D. RAJAN, J.** ------------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.2218 of 2012 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 11[th ] day of April, 2014 ## **ORDER** This petition is filed u/s.482 Cr.P.C. to quash AnnexureIII final report in Crime No.1086/2010 of Pala Police, which was registered for offence punishable u/s.498A r/w.34 IPC by invoking the inherent jurisdiction. The petitioners are 2[nd] and 3[rd] accused in the above case, which was filed by the 2[nd] respondent before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pala. The petitioners contended that no overt act is alleged against them by the 2[nd] respondent in Annexure-I complaint. Hence, prima facie case is not made against them. The petitioners are innocents of the allegations and the 1[st] petitioner is a spinster sister looking for matrimonial alliance. She is unnecessary party in this proceedings. Moreover, matrimonial disputes are pending before Family Court, Crl.M.C.No.2218/12 2 Ettumanoor between the parties, O.P.Nos.1137/2010 and 11367/2010 and this petition was filed by suppressing those material facts. 2. The allegation of the 2[nd] respondent in Annexure-I complaint was that her marriage with the 1[st] accused was solemnized on 18.4.2010 at St.George Cathedral Church, Kothamangalam as Christian religious rites. After the marriage, both of them resided together as wife and husband in the matrimonial house, while residing so, the accused demanded more amount and gold as dowry and illtreated her both physically and mentally. Hence, the 2[nd] respondent filed Anneuxre-I complaint in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pala, which was forwarded to Pala Police for investigation u/s.156(3) Cr.P.C. After getting Annexure-I complaint, Pala Police registered Annexure-II FIR and proceeded with investigation. After completing investigation, Annexure-III final report has been filed before Judicial First Class Crl.M.C.No.2218/12 3 Magistrate Court, Pala. Hence, the petitioners approached this Court with this petition. 3. Inherent jurisdiction u/s.482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked in the interest of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of Court. This inherent jurisdiction has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the test specifically laid down by the Section itself. Moreover, while exercising jurisdiction, the High Court would not conduct an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable apprehension of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the primary responsibility of the trial Judge or Magistrate. To prevent abuse of the process of the Court, High Court in exercise of its inherent powers u/s.482 could quash the proceedings but there would be justification for interference only when the complaint did not disclose any offence or was frivolous vexatious or oppressive. Apex Court in _**State of Haryana**_ V. Crl.M.C.No.2218/12 4 ## _**Bhajanlal**_ , [1992 SCC (Crl) 426] pointed out that: “Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, the proceedings are liable to be quashed”. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that prima facie case is not made out against the 3[rd] accused, who is the 1[st] petitioner in this case. In paragraph 6 of the complaint, it is alleged that 2[nd] and 3[rd] accused illtreated her on the very same day of the marriage itself. In paragraph 14 also, it is alleged that when anything is purchased for the complainant, the accused insisted to purchase the same thing to the 1[st] petitioner also. If anything is done against that direction, the 1[st] accused became violent and illtreated her. It is clear from the evidence that the 3[rd] accused is a spinster. 5. In order to attract Section 498A IPC, the defacto complainant has to allege that the husband or relative of husband of a woman subjects such woman to cruelty shall Crl.M.C.No.2218/12 5 be punished u/s.498A. The explanation says about 'cruelty' that anywilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the woman. Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. Here, the vague allegations made in paragraphs 6 and 14 are not sufficient to attract the prima facie case against the 3[rd] accused. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the prima facie case is not made out against her. If that be the position, there is no harm for the prosecution to proceed against the 1[st] and 2[nd] accused in the above case. The learned counsel relied Apex Court decision in _**Preeti Gupta and another**_ v. _**State of Jharkhand and another**_ [2010 (7) SCC 667], in which it is held as follows: (paras 32 and 33): Crl.M.C.No.2218/12 6 “32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases to dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern. 33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fibre of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and s should treat every complaint under Section 498A as a basic human problem and msut make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fibre, peace and tranquillity of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.” 6. In this case also, the 3[rd] accused is a spinster and no special allegation is made against her. There is a matrimonial allegation against the husband and the mother-in-law. There may be heat of moment over trivial issues between the husband and wife. But, unfortunately, in such situation filing of complaint against other inmates, Crl.M.C.No.2218/12 7 such as unmarred sister-in-law, is a bad precedent and the consequence of such false implication has not properly visualised by the defacto complainant in this case. If such allegations are filed against the inmates, that amount to overwhelming harassment, agony and pain to the accused and his close relatives. The ultimate object of justice is to find out truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculian task in majority of these complaints. Therefore, the tendency of implicating inmates is also not uncommon in a matrimonial dispute. Therefore, such situation is to be identified by the Magistrate, while taking cognizance of offence and issuing process towards the person involved in such criminal cases. 7. Here, the allegation made against the 3[rd] accused is without any basis. Therefore, I am of the view that the learned Magistrate failed to scrutinize the allegations towards her. If such a care is made at the Crl.M.C.No.2218/12 8 initial stage, perhaps, she would not have approached this Forum with this petition. Hence, criminal prosecution against the the 3[rd] accused in Crime N0.1086/2010 of Pala Police, which is pending as C.C.No.532/2010 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pala, is hereby quashed by invoking the inherent jurisdiction. The learned Magistrate shall proceed with the trial of the 1[st] and 2[nd] accused in the above crime, as per law. Crl.M.C. is partly allowed. **P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.** acd Crl.M.C.No.2218/12 9 Crl.M.C.No.2218/12 10