Govindan Nair and Saraswathi Amma and Sree Kala Sindhu v. State of Kerala and Mini

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR** **THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 14TH JYAISHTA, 1942** ## **Crl.MC.No.4225 OF 2014** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC NO.253/2014 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ,THRISSUR** **CRIME NO.703/2013 OF Town West Police Station , Thrissur** ## **PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NOS.2 TO 4:** - **1 GOVINDAN NAIR, AGED 76 YEARS, ERATTEMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANIMANGALAM VILLAGE, DESOM.** - **2 SARASWATHI AMMA, AGED 73 YEARS, W/O.GOVINDAN NAIR,** - **ERATTEMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANIMANGALAM VILLAGE, DESOM.** - **3 SREEKALA SINDHU, AGED 38 YEARS,ERATTEMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANIMANGALAM VILLAGE, DESOM.** **BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.) SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN** **SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/ STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** - **2 MINI,** **AGED 40 YEARS,D/O.NARAYANANKUTTY, SOWPARNIKA, HIGH SCHOOL ROAD, ROYAL STREET, PERAMANGALAM.** **R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR OTHER PRESENT:** ## **E.C.BINEESH -P.P** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-06-2020, THE COURT ON 04-06-2020 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.M.C.No.4225/2014** ## **-: 2 :-** Dated this the 4[th] day of June,2020 ## O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, party respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor in this matter which arises under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(for short,'the CrPC). 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the second petitioner expired during the pendency of this proceeding and therefore, part of the Crl.M.C. filed by him has become infructuous. 3. Petitioners are A2 to A4 in Annexure-A final report submitted in C.C.No.253/2014 before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 509, 294(b), 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, 1806(for short, 'IPC') and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961(for short, 'the Act'). They seek to quash the **Crl.M.C.No.4225/2014** ## **-: 3 :-** final report on the ground that continuance of the proceeding in the court below will amount to abuse of the process of the court unless it is quashed at the earliest. It is contended that except very vague and sweeping allegations, there are no specific incidents of petitioners having made any unlawful demand for dowry. In short, the submission is that the allegations in the final report do not disclose any of the offences alleged against them. 4. The de facto complainant, who is the second respondent was married to the first accused on 13.09.2007. A2 and 3 are his parents and A4 is his sole sister. Prosecution case is that all the four accused made unlawful demand for dowry from the de facto complainant since June, 2008 till 14.5.2013 while she lived in the matrimonial as well as rented houses and subjected her to mental and physical cruelties for her failure to meet the demands. **Crl.M.C.No.4225/2014** ## **-: 4 :-** 5. What is relevant for consideration is, whether the statement given by the de facto complainant before police consists of instances wherein petitioners had made unlawful demand for dowry and subjected her to mental and physical harassments. 6. De facto complainant was adorned with 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments by her parents. The sole allegation against second petitioner, father who passed away during the pendency of proceeding is that he took away the ornaments from her for keeping them in a locker. This allegation can no longer survive since the proceedings as against him must be held to have abated after his death. 7. So far as allegations as against petitioners 2 and 3 who are mother and sister are concerned, I do not find that they are so serious as to fasten them with criminal liability under Section 498A of IPC. The First Information Statement of de facto complainant was recorded on **Crl.M.C.No.4225/2014** ## **-: 5 :-** 16.05.2013. Allegation against petitioners 2 and 3 is that they harassed her stating that 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments given to her by parents were less. This statement is too sufficient to constitute unlawful demand for dowry. Other allegations are to the effect that the mother and sister of first accused instigated him to make unlawful demand for additional gold and her share in the property. But her statement nowhere indicates that she ever witnessed petitioners 2 and 3 instigating her husband for any unlawful demand. Another allegation is that physical harassments on her were made right in their presence. Except these general statements, there is nothing either in the statement of the de facto complainant or other witnesses questioned by police to indicate that petitioners 2 and 3 ever made any unlawful demand for dowry so as to constitute their act amounting to an offence under Section 498A of IPC. 8. The learned counsel for the de facto **Crl.M.C.No.4225/2014** ## **-: 6 :-** complainant submitted that in a proceeding under Section 482 CrPC, meticulous scrutiny of the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC is not advisable since they are wholly inadmissible under the provisions of the CrPC. In this respect, he placed a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab and Ors. [JT 2020(2) SC 172](in Crl.A. No.232/2020). In fact, my discussion above that statement of de facto complainant does not disclose unlawful demand for property as made by petitioners 2 and 3 is based on her First Information Statement(FIS) recorded under Section 154 of the CrPC itself. Therefore, the decision cited by the learned counsel for the second respondent has no application to the facts of this case. 9. I am satisfied that on the basis of general and sweeping statements made by the second respondent, petitioners 2 and 3 cannot be allowed to be prosecuted for offences punishable under **Crl.M.C.No.4225/2014** ## **-: 7 :-** Sections 498A, 509, 294(b) 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Annexure-A final report is, therefore, is liable to be quashed so far as petitioners 2 and 3 are concerned. In the result, Crl.M.C. succeeds and Annexure-A final report in C.C. No.253/2014 is quashed insofar as it was laid as against petitioners 2 and 3. The prosecution as against first petitioner has already abated following death during the pendency of this proceeding. The court below may proceed against the first accused in C.C.No.253/2014 in accordance with law. ## **Sd/-** ## T.V.ANILKUMAR,JUDGE DST //True copy/ P.A.To Judge **Crl.M.C.No.4225/2014** **-: 8 :-** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** ## **ANNEXURE A** **TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.C.NO.253/2014 PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR.** ## **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL**