Crl.M.C Nos. 5682 of 2023 & 6527 of 2023

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 10TH SRAVANA, ``` ## **`1946`** ``` CRL.MC NO. 5682 OF 2023 CRIME NO.1330/2021 OF Ernakulam North Police Station, Ernakulam C.C.NO.120/2022OFADDITIONALCHIEFJUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED: ``` ``` CHANDRIKA SASIKUMAR AGED 62 YEARS ``` ``` W/O (LATE) SASIKUMAR RAMAN KUTTY, KUMMANNOOR HOUSE, KUMARANELLOOR PO, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN – 686016. ``` ``` BY ADV A.KRISHNAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE:`** - **`1 ANJANA PRATHAP, AGED 33 YEARS, FLAT NO. 53, JAYAM GARDENS, VADUTHALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682023.`** - **`2 STATE OF KERALA`** ``` REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031. ``` ``` BY ADVS. S.RAJEEV S V.VINAY(K/355/2009) M.S.ANEER(K/644/2013) SARATH K.P.(K/001467/2021) PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH(K/000736/2015) ANILKUMAR C.R.(K/001190/2020) ``` ``` PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI SANAL P.RAJ ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.07.2024 ALONG WITH CRMC.NO.6527/2O23, THE COURT ON 01.08.2024 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.M.C.Nos.5682 & 6527 of 2023 2 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1946 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 6527 OF 2023 ``` ``` CRIME NO.1330/2021 OF Ernakulam North Police Station, Ernakulam CC NO.120 OF 2022 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE , ERNAKULAM ``` ## **`PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:`** ``` ACHUTHAN SASIKUMAR AGED 33 YEARS S/O (LATE) SASIKUMAR RAMAN KUTTY, KUMMANNOOR HOUSE, KUMARANELLOOR PO, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN – 686016. ``` ``` BY ADV A.KRISHNAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT WIFE & STATE:`** ``` 1ANJANA PRATHAP AGED 33 YEARS FLAT NO. 53, JAYAM GARDENS, VADUTHALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682023. 2STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031. ``` ``` BY ADVS. S.RAJEEV S V.VINAY(K/355/2009) M.S.ANEER(K/644/2013) SARATH K.P.(K/001467/2021) PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH(K/000736/2015) ANILKUMAR C.R.(K/001190/2020) K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN(K/3514/2022) ``` ``` PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI M P PRASANTH ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.07.2024 ALONG WITH CRL.M.C.NO.5682/2023, THE COURT ON 01.08.2024 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.M.C.Nos.5682 & 6527 of 2023 3 ## _**A. BADHARUDEEN, J.**_ _**================================** Crl.M.C.Nos.5682 and 6527 of 2023 ================================ Dated this the 1st day of August, 2024_ ## _**C O M M O N O R D E R**_ Crl.M.C.No.5682/2023 has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C’ for short hereafter), by the 2[nd] accused in C.C.No.120/2022 on the files of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, arising out of Crime No.1330/2021 of Ernakulam North Police Station, seeking quashment of the said proceedings. The 1[st] accused in the above crime has filed Crl.M.C.No.6527/2023 and he also seeks quashment of the above proceedings. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the prosecution records. 3. The prosecution allegation herein is that the marriage between the defacto complainant and the 1[st] accused was solemnised on 02.05.2021 as per Hindu religious custom and thereafter the defacto complainant lived along with the 1[st] and 2[nd] accused for 5 days at the matrimonial home. During these days she was subjected to cruelty by accused 1 and 2 by demanding money and more dowry. On this premise, the Crl.M.C.Nos.5682 & 6527 of 2023 4 prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 498A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. While seeking quashment of the proceedings, the learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that vague allegations are raised against the petitioners in this case, where admittedly the defacto complainant resided in the matrimonial house only for 5 days. Accordingly, it is submitted that merely on the basis of vague and flimsy allegations, the offence punishable under Section 498A of I.P.C would not attract. As such, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor also referred the statements of the victim as well as the witnesses while submitting that _prima facie_ the prosecution allegations are made ut against the petitioners. Therefore, the matter would go for trial. 6. While opposing the quashment prayer, the defacto complainant read out FIS as well as statements of the witnesses pointing out that there are specific allegations raised against the petitioners and in view of the matter, quashment could not be considered. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed decisions of the Apex Court reported in [2018 KHC 6625 : 2018 (2) KLD 766 : 2018 (10) SCALE 112 : AIR 2018 SC 4009 : 2018 (14) SCC 452], _**Subba Rao K. & Ors.**_ Crl.M.C.Nos.5682 & 6527 of 2023 5 _**v. State of Telangana rep. By its Secretary**_ ; [2021 KHC 5735 : 2021 KHC OnLine 5735 : 2021 CriLJ 4953], _**Purushothaman & Ors. v. State of Kerala**_ ; [2019 KHC 6514 : 2019 (2) KLT 1053 : AIR 2019 SC 2297 : 2019 CriLJ 3450 : 2019 (15) SCC 357], _**Rashmi Chopra v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.**_ and also [MANU/SC/0377/2024], _**Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Ors.**_ , to canvass the legal position that general and sweeping allegations alone would not constitute offence under Section 498A of IPC, in support of his contentions. 8. Coming to the legal position, the same is as espoused in the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Thus omnibus, general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record specific instances of criminal conduct or cruelty would not attract offence under Section 498A of IPC. 9. Keeping the legal principles in mind, I have gone through the FIS in the present crime. In the FIS, the defacto complainant would say that she lived at the matrimonial home for a period of 10 days after their marriage on 02.05.2021. During her residence there, on the second day of marriage the 1[st] accused demanded money from the defacto complainant for paying chitty amount and also to clear the debt he had availed for the purpose of marriage. Accordingly, money also was transferred from the account of the defacto complainant to the accused. Later also, money was demanded and when the demand was refused, she was subjected to persecution. The specific allegation Crl.M.C.Nos.5682 & 6527 of 2023 6 against the 1[st] accused is that the 1[st] accused is in the habit of watching porn videos and on seeing porn videos he compelled the defacto complainant to do sexual acts in tune with the porn videos. The 1[st] accused went abroad on 08.06.2021 and returned back on 01.10.2021. On 07.10.20221 the 1[st] accused wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and her father while they were travelling in a car by using his two wheeler and abused her, in continuation of the demand for money and dowry. Thus there are specific allegations of physical assault levelled against the 1[st] accused. But there is no specific allegation levelled against the 2[nd] accused in this matter. 10. Having noticed the factual aspect in tune with the legal position canvassed, I am of the view that the case against the 1[st] accused is not liable to be quashed since the same would require trial with liberty to the prosecution to adduce evidence. Since only sweeping and omnibus allegations are levelled against the 2[nd] accused without specifying any specific overt acts, the case against the 2[nd] accused is liable to be quashed since no _prima facie_ materials are made out against the 2[nd] accused. 11. In the result: a) Crl.M.C.No.6527/2023 stands dismissed. b) Crl.M.C.No.5682 of 2023 stands allowed. All further proceedings in C.C.No.120/2022 on the files of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, arose out of Crime No.1330/2021 of Ernakulam Crl.M.C.Nos.5682 & 6527 of 2023 7 Town Police Station, against the 2nd accused alone stand quashed, while permitting the trial court to go for trial as against the 1st accused. 12. Interim stay stands vacated. Registry shall forward a copy of this order to the trial court for information and further steps. _Sd/-_ _**A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE** rtr/_ Crl.M.C.Nos.5682 & 6527 of 2023 8 ## **`PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES`** ``` Annexure A ``` ``` THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 1330 OF 2021 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN POLICE STATION ``` Crl.M.C.Nos.5682 & 6527 of 2023 9 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6527/2023`** ## **`PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES`** ## **`Annexure A`** ``` THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 1330 OF 2021 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN POLICE STATION 27.1.2022 ``` ## **`Annexure B`** ``` TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN CRL.M.P NO. 1/2023 IN CRL. M. C. NO. 5682 OF 2023 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DT.24.07.2023 ```