Nibin Chacko George, Susan George and Niya Ann George v. State of Kerala and Meekal Alex

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU`** ## **`WEDNESDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1944`** ## **`CRL.MC NO. 6377 OF 2021`** ## **`AGAINST CC 313/2021 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT (TEMPORARY),`** ``` SASTHAMCOTTA IN CRIME NO.848/2021 OF SOORANADU POLICE STATION, KOLLAM PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ``` ``` 1NIBIN CHACKO GEORGE, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. CHACKO GEORGE, KUTTIYIL BENNY VILLA, MAVELIKKARA P.O, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, PIN – 690101. 2SUSAN GEORGE, AGED 54 YEARS, W/O. CHACKO GEORGE, KUTTIYIL BENNY VILLA, MAVELIKKARA P.O, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, - 690101. 3NIYA ANN GEORGE, AGED 24 YEARS, D/O. CHACKO GEORGE, KUTTIYIL BENNY VILLA, MAVELIKKARA P.O, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, - 690101. BY ADVS. RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAIM:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SOORANADU POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682031. 2MEEKAL ALEX, AGED 26 YEARS, D/O. LALI ALEX, VATTAKKATTU KIZHAKKETHIL, SHOORANAD NORTH VILLAGE, SHOORANADU P.O, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, PIN – 690522. BY ADV SRI.N.R.SANGEETHARAJ,PP SRI.DILEEP P V ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ``` 15.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.M.C.No.6377 of 2021 2 ## **K.BABU, J** . -------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.6377 of 2021 --------------------------------------Dated this the 15[th] day of March, 2023 ## **O R D E R** The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petition as against petitioner No.1 is not pressed. This submission is recorded. Hence, the Crl.M.C. is dismissed as not pressed as against petitioner No.1. 2. Petitioner No.1 is the husband of respondent No.2. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the mother and sister of petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.1 married respondent No.2 on 25.08.2019. Subsequent to the marriage, the parties resided at the matrimonial house. Their relationship later stranged. Respondent No.2 submitted Annexure D petition before the SHO, Sooranadu Police Station, Kollam, based on which Annexure A FIR was registered, alleging offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC against the petitioners. The police completed the investigation and submitted Annexure F Final Report against the petitioners before the Jurisdictional Court. 3. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 seek to quash the Final report Crl.M.C.No.6377 of 2021 3 and further proceedings in C.C.No.313/2021 on the file of the Temporary Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sasthamkota, as against them. 4. Respondent No.2 alleged matrimonial cruelty on the part of the petitioners. The allegation against petitioner Nos.2 and 3 in Annexure A FIR is as follows:- “The mother-in-law and sister of her husband mentally and physically ill-treated her” 5. In the final report, it is submitted that petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 mentally ill-treated respondent No.2, the victim. The FIR was registered by the Police on 05.07.2021. Along with the Final Report, a statement stated to have been recorded by the police on 06.07.2021 was also appended wherein there are specific allegations. The prosecution has not given any explanation as to what prevented the defacto complainant from making those allegations in the statement dated 05.07.2021. Going by the materials produced by the prosecution as against petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, the allegations are only general. There were no specific allegations in the FIR or the Final Report as to the specific role of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. 6. The learned counsel for petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, relying Crl.M.C.No.6377 of 2021 4 ## on **Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar [(2022) 6 SCC 599]** , contended that the general omnibus allegations cannot be used to implicate relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes. In **Kahkashan Kausar (supra),** the Apex Court observed thus:- “16. Recently, in **K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana** (2018) 14 SCC 452, it was also observed that: “6. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.” 17. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498A 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 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.” 7. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned Public Prosecutor, relying on the subsequent statement recorded by the Police during the investigation, submitted that there are specific allegations to implicate petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 as accused and those are matters of evidence and that there are sufficient materials to proceed against petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 Crl.M.C.No.6377 of 2021 5 also. Annexure A FIR does not disclose any material to implicate petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. Even if the face value of the reports in the FIS and the subsequent statement recorded by the Police on 06.07.2021 had been taken up and accepted in their entirety, they do not prima facie constitute any offence under Section 498-A of IPC. 8. On the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Apex Court in **State of Haryana and** ## **Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others (1992 Supp. (1) 335)** held thus:- “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview Crl.M.C.No.6377 of 2021 6 of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) 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. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 9. The present case is fully covered by categories 1& 3, as enumerated in **Bhajan Lal** case (supra). I am of the view that, in the present facts and circumstances, the criminal proceedings consequent to the Final Report in C.C.No.313 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, (Temporary), Sasthamkotta, against the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are liable to be quashed. Crl.M.C.No.6377 of 2021 **==> picture [7 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** 10. In the result, the Crl.M.C. is partly allowed. The Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.313/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, (Temporary), Sasthamkotta, as against petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, stand quashed. It is made clear that the Court below is at liberty to proceed against petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.1 is at liberty to raise all contentions during the trial. He is also at liberty to seek discharge by invoking Section 239 of Cr.P.C. Sd/- **K.BABU JUDGE** VPK Crl.M.C.No.6377 of 2021 8 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6377/2021`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` ``` Annexure A ``` ``` CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 848/2021 OF SOORANADU POLICE STATION. ``` ``` Annexure BA TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE OF SOORANADU POLICE STATION. ``` ``` Annexure CA TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE OF SOORANADU POLICE STATION. ``` ``` Annexure DA TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SHO. SOORANADU POLICE STATION, NUMBERED AS PETITION NO. 273/2021. ``` ``` Annexure EA TRUE COPY OF THE JOINING LETTER DATED 14.06.2019 ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER BY THE TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES. ``` ``` Annexure FCERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 848/2021 OF SOORANADU POLICE STATION. ```