CRL.M.C. NO.8139 OF 2017

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. WEDNESDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 8139 OF 2017 CRIME NO.338/2016 OF PETTA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN CC 1911/2016 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ``` ## **`THIRUVANANTHAPURAM`** ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:`** ``` 1ANEESH P. SOMAN AGED 33 YEARS SREENILAYAM, PUTHUPARAMBIL,CHEERANCHIRA PO, CHANGANASSERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2CHANDANAVALLI AGED 65 YEARS, SREENILAYAM, PUTHUPARAMBIL, CHEERANCHIRA PO, CHANGANSSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3SOMAN P.S AGED 69 YEARS, SREENILAYAM, PUTHUPARAMBIL, CHEERANCHIRA PO, CHANGANSSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4ASHA P SOMAN AGED 31 YEARS, SREENILAYAM, PUTHUPARAMBIL, CHEERANCHIRA PO, CHANGANSSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL SMT.V.A.HARITHA SRI.JEEVAN RAJEEV SMT.MARY RESHMA GEORGE SMT.P.M.MAZNA MANSOOR SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:`** ``` 1ANOJA M.S. AGED 31 YEARS, T C NO.31/726, MOONNAMMANACKAL,PETTAH PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 024. ``` ``` Crl.M.C. NO.8139 OF 2017 2 ``` ``` 2THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PETTAH POLICE STATION, PETTAH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 024. 3STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERANAKULAM, KOCHI-31. BY ADVS SMT.P.RAJASREE SRI. NOUSHAD K.A. (SR.PP) ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` Crl.M.C. NO.8139 OF 2017 3 ``` ## **ORDER** This Crl.MC has been filed by the accused in C.C.No.1911/2016 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, seeking to quash the proceedings in the said case. The petitioners face allegations of having committed offences under Sections 498A and 324 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that this is a classic case where the provisions of law have been misused to rope in the husband and other family members of the husband on account of matrimonial disputes pending between the 1[st] petitioner and the 1[st] respondent/defacto complainant. It is submitted that the final report in C.C.No.1911/2016 pending on the file of the Addition Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, will show that there is absolutely no allegation which would show that petitioners 2 and 3 (parents of the 1[st] petitioner) and the 4[th] petitioner (sister of the 1[st] petitioner) have committed the offences alleged ``` Crl.M.C. NO.8139 OF 2017 4 ``` against them. It is submitted that the 4[th] petitioner is presently planning to relocate abroad and on account of the fact that C.C.No.1911/2016 is pending, she is unable to even obtain a Police Clearance Certificate. After arguing for sometime the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he is confining his relief to the quashing of proceedings as against the 4[th] petitioner, against whom there are absolutely no allegations raised by the 1[st] respondent. It is submitted that the only allegation as against the 4[th] petitioner in the statement of the 1[st] respondent/defacto complainant forming part of AnnexureA1 final report is the following: ## “ xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx ആസമയത തഭർത്താവിന്റെ മാതാപിതാക്കളുംജോലിസ്ഥലതതനിന വല്ലപ്പോഴുംവരുന്നഅനുജത്തിആശയുംഎന്നെ ഓരോരോകാര്യം പറഞ . ആകാലത ഞമനഃപ്രയാസപ്പെടുത്തുമായിരുന്നു തആശയുടെ വിവാഹം . കഴിഞ്ഞിട്ടില്ലായിരുന്നു എന്റെ സ്വർണ്ണാഭരണങ്ങൾ ആശക വിവാഹം കകിട്ടുവാൻവേണ്ടിയാണ്അവളുടെ ചേട്ടൻഎന്നെ കഴിച്ചതെന്നുംഅവർപറയുന്നതനുസരിചചആവീട്ടിൽകഴിയാമെങ്കിൽ മാത്രംഞാനവിടെ നിന്നാൽമതിയെ ന്നുംബാക്കിസ്ത്രീധനവുംകൂടിഉടൻ പറഞ ആശ വാങ്ങികകൊണ വരണമെന്നും എന്നെ . മനഃപ്രയാസപ്പെടുത്തുമായിരുന്നു ഞാൻഅവരുടെ അടുക്കളയിൽ നിൽക്കുമ്പോൾആശയുംഅവളുടെ അമ്മചന്ദനവല്ലിയുംഓരോരോ പറഞ എ കാരണങ്ങൾ ്ന്നോട് വഴക്കുണ്ടാക്ുയും അവരുടെ കൈയ്യിൽ കിട്ടുന്ന അടുക്കള ഉപകരണങ്ങൾ എടുത എന്നെ . ഉപദ്രവിക്ുയുംചെയ്യുമായിരുന്നു ## `Crl.M.C. NO.8139 OF 2017 5` ## xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx 19. 04. 2015 . ആ തീയതിയിലാണ്ആശയുടെ വിവാഹംനടന്നത് വിവാഹസമയത എന്റെ കൈവശമുണ്ടായിരുന്ന അവശേഷിച്ച സ്വർണ്ണാഭരണങ്ങളുംഎന്നിൽനിന്നുംവാങ്ങിഭർത്താവ്ആശയുടെ . വിവാഹം കല്യാണങ്ങൾക്കായി ഉപയയോഗിച്ചു ആശയുടെ ഭാഗത കഴിഞ്ഞതിനുശേഷംപിന്നീട്ആശയുടെ തനിന്നുംഎനിക ” . മനഃപ്രയാസങ്ങളളൊന്നുംഉണ്ടായിട്ടില്ല It is submitted that these allegations are clearly not sufficient to establish any case of the 4[th] petitioner having committed the offence under Section 498 A or Section 324 of IPC against the 4[th] petitioner. He also places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in **Kahkashan Kausar and Others v. State of Bihar and Others;** Manu/SC/0163/2022. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent/defacto complainant refers to the counter affidavit filed in this case as also to the application filed for producing additional documents to contend that there are sufficient materials to show that the 1[st] respondent was subjected to cruelty at the matrimonial home by her husband, his parents and his sister (the 4[th] petitioner). It is submitted that there are sufficient allegations in ``` Crl.M.C. NO.8139 OF 2017 6 ``` Annexure-A1 which would indicate that all the accused had committed the offences alleged against them. It is submitted that there is no case for this Court to interfere under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and the question as to whether any of the petitioners were innocent in the matter is to be decided on the evidence to be adduced during the trial of the case. The learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in **Meera v. State by the Inspector of Police, Thiruvotriyur Police Station, Chennai;** 2022 KHC 6034, to contend that there is no general principle of law that, in-laws cannot be subject matter of prosecution under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that the above judgment is a case where conviction of an 80 year old mother-in-law was upheld by the Supreme Court. 4. Heard the learned Senior Public Prosecutor also. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Senior Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent/defacto complainant, I am of the view that the proceedings against ``` Crl.M.C. NO.8139 OF 2017 7 ``` the 4[th] petitioner can be quashed in exercise of jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The only allegations against the 4[th] petitioner are as noticed above. In **Preeti Gupta and Another v. State of Jharkhand and Another; (2010) 7 SCC 667,** it was held as follows: “32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code 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 of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern. 33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber 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 should treat every complaint under Section 498A as a basic human problem and must 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 fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases. ## `Crl.M.C. NO.8139 OF 2017 8` 34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, Accused and his close relations. 35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. 36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.” ``` Crl.M.C. NO.8139 OF 2017 9 ``` The judgment in **Meera (Supra)** , which was cited by the learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent, is no doubt authority for the proposition that when the guilt of relatives of the husband has been proved beyond doubt in criminal proceedings, there is no ground to hold that such findings could not have been entered against them on account of the fact that they are only relatives of the husband. However, one must proceed on the basis that there were allegations at the first instance against the relatives of the husband. In the facts of the present case after noticing the allegations against the 4[th] petitioner, I am of the view that the allegations are lacking in particulars and they are general and omnibus in nature in so far as they relate to the 4[th] petitioner. In **Kahkashan** ## **Kausar (Supra)** it was held as follows: “ 18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false ## `Crl.M.C. NO.8139 OF 2017 10` implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them”. Therefore, taking into consideration the contents of Annexure-A1 and keeping in mind the principles of law laid down in the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, I am of the view that the proceedings against the 4[th] petitioner can be quashed. Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is allowed in part and all further proceedings in C.C.No.1911/2016 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram (arising out of Crime No.338/2016 of Pettah Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram district) in so far as they relate to the 4[th] petitioner will stand quashed. This order or any observation contained herein will not have any bearing on the proceedings against petitioners 1 to 3. **Sd/GOPINATH P.** ats **JUDGE** ``` Crl.M.C. NO.8139 OF 2017 11 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 8139/2017`** ## `PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES` - `ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC NO.1911 OF 2016 PENDING BEFORE THE FILES OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.` - `Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT NO. 0338 OF 2016 DATED 20.03.2016, PETTAH POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM` - `RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES Annexure R1(A) COPY OF BANK STATEMENT` - `Annexure R1(B) COPY OF OBJECTION OF 1[ST] PETITIONER IN OP 566/2016 OF HON.FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM` - `Annexure R1 (C) COPY OF OP TICKET GENERAL HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM` - `Annexure R1(D) THE COPY OF MESSAGES BETWEEN APPLICANT /1ST RESPONDENT IN CRL.MC AND 1ST RESPONDENT IN THIS APPLICATION / 1ST PETITIONER IN CRL.MC ( HIS MOBILE NO.9324711728)` - `Annexure R1(E) THE COPY OF PLAINT OF OP NO.1271/2019 OF THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, MAVELIKARA WHICH IS FILED BY THE FATHER OF 2ND PETITIONER IN CRL.MC AGAINST THE 2ND PETITIONER IN CRL.MC ON THE CRUELTY OF THE 2ND PETITIONER AGAINST HER AGEOLD FATHER FOR ASSETS,` - `Annexure R1(F) COPY OF IA NO.2889/2019 IN OP NO.1271/2019 OF THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, MAVELIKARA WHICH IS FILED BY THE FATHER OF 2ND PETITIONER IN CRL.MC AGAINST 2ND PETITIONER IN CRL.MC` - `Annexure R1(G) COPY OF PLAINT OF OS NO.118/2019 OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT, CHENGANNUR WHICH IS FILED BY 2ND PETITIONER IN CRL, MC AGAINST HER ONLY BROTHER BHAGYANATH FOR ASSETS .`