Ramachandran Nair v. State of Kerala and Ranjini R. Nair

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/26TH MAGHA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 649 of 2017 ()** **--------------------------** ## **CRIME NO. 1496/2016 OF THRIKKODITHANAM POLICE STATION , KOTTAYAM** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **---------------------** **RAMACHANDRAN NAIR AGED 69 YEARS, EZHUMANTHACKAL HOUSE, THRIKKODITHANAM MURI, THRIKKODITHANAM VILLAGE.** **BY ADVS.SRI.T.P.PRADEEP SRI.P.K.SATHEES KUMAR** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** **------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.** **2. RANJINI R.NAIR AGED 41 YEARS, D/O.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, LAKSHMY NILAYAM, MUKKATTUPADY, THRIKKODITHANAM MURI, THRIKKODITHANAM VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY.** **R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.ANILKUMAR R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.E.C.BINEESH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Crl.MC.No. 649 of 2017 ()** **--------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **----------------------ANNEXURE A : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR NO.1496/2016.** **ANNEXURE B : TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 1-6-2016.** **ANNEXURE C : TRUE COPY OF THE OS NO.220/2016.** **ANNEXURE D : TRUE COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER DATED 9-6-2016. ANNEXURE E : ORIGINAL COPY OF THE PETITION NAMELY MC NO.66/2016.** **ANNEXURE F : ORIGINAL COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL** **-----------------------** **//TRUE COPY//** **PA TO JUDGE** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## Crl.M.C. No. 649 of 2017 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15[th] day of February, 2017 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **ORDER** - 1.This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code” for brevity) with a prayer to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners. - 2.The petitioner herein is the father of the 2[nd] respondent. On the basis of the information furnished by the 2[nd] respondent, Crime No.1496 of 2016 of the Thrikkodithanam Police Station was registered against the petitioner herein under Section 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The victim is none other than grandchild of the petitioner herein. - 3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the 2[nd] respondent. - 4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits Crl.M.C. No.649 of 2017 -2- that the 2[nd] respondent had married one Asok kumar in the year 1997 and a child was born in the wedlock. In the course of their marital relationship, the spouses fell apart. Thereafter, the 2[nd] respondent approached the petitioner herein and started living with him in her parental home. It appears that the 2[nd] respondent was disturbed mentally due to the troubles that she had in her marital relationship. During her stay in the parental home, she started raising demands and when the same was not met with raising false allegations, she gave a complaint before the police. Thereafter, she took on rent the adjacent premises and started harassing the petitioner and his wife. She also threatened to trespass into the property of the petitioner. Left with no alternative, the petitioner and his wife approached the Munsiff Court, Changanasserry and filed O.S.No.220 of 2016 and secured an interim order of injunction restraining the 2[nd] respondent from Crl.M.C. No.649 of 2017 -3- trespassing into the residential home of the petitioner and from committing any waste or from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the property. It also appears that the 2[nd] respondent thereafter filed a petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against her husband and mother-in-law, wherein serious allegations which includes molestation of his child is raised against her husband. It is thereafter that the instant complaint was filed before the police on 26.7.2016, wherein she alleges that the petitioner had committed sexual assault on his grandchild. It appears that the allegation is that while the petitioner was taking the grandchild to the school in his car, he made unwelcome physical contact and advances. 5. According to the petitioner, the registration of the Crime at the instance of his own daughter is solely for the purpose of harassing him. According to the petitioner, no Crl.M.C. No.649 of 2017 -4- such incident had ever taken place. It is further submitted that during the course of proceedings, the 2[nd] respondent has come forward realising her mistakes and has sworn to an affidavit wherein she stated that she was disturbed mentally and it was for the purpose of getting back at her father who had instituted a suit against her that the complaint was made. - 6.The learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent referred to Annexure-F affidavit and would submit that the petitioner was mentally very troubled and under the impression that the father would deprive her of the family share and it was in the said predicament that she had given a statement before the police implicating her father in a serious offence. - 7.Learned Public Prosecutor was directed to get instructions. The Sub Inspector of Police, Thrikkodithanam Police Station has recorded the statement of the 2[nd] respondent Crl.M.C. No.649 of 2017 -5- wherein she asserts that she was persuaded to lodge a complaint against her own father in view of the institution of the civil suit. - 8.I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the materials on record. 9.Prosecution allegation specifically is that the petitioner herein committed acts with sexual intent and which included physical contact on the minor child. It is evident from Annexure-C plaint that much prior to the complaint, the petitioner had approached the Munsiff Court, Changanassery and filed O.S.No.220 of 2016 and had obtained interim order of injunction against the 2[nd] respondent. Annexure-D is the copy of the order, which is dated 9.6.2016. A reading of Annexure-A FI Statement dated 26.7.2016 would reveal that the alleged acts were committed during the period from August, 2015 till January, 2016. It is clear as day light that the intention of Crl.M.C. No.649 of 2017 -6- the 2[nd] respondent was to get back at her father who had secured an injunction order against her. It can also be seen from Annexure-E complaint filed by the 2[nd] respondent against her husband and mother-in-law, that she has raised identical allegations against her husband as well. Though this is a case where, action ought to have been taken against the 2[nd] respondent for furnishing false information, I refrain from doing so as it is submitted by the petitioner that the 2[nd] respondent was mentally much troubled due to the acts of her husband. ## 10.In **State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy** [AIR 1977 SC 1489], the Apex Court had occasion to observe as follows: Section 482 of the new Code which corresponds to Section 561-A of the Code of 1898 provides that: “Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the Crl.M.C. No.649 of 2017 -7- process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice." In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has not to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its subjects it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction.” Crl.M.C. No.649 of 2017 -8- 11.Having given my anxious consideration to the prosecution allegation and the other materials, I am of the considered view that the initiation of prosecution against the petitioner by his own daughter is only a weapon of harassment to get back at him for instituting a civil suit. The very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests makes is amply clear that the continuance of proceedings will not serve any purpose and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has not to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. 12.Having gone through the materials on record and after perusing the affidavit sworn to by the 2[nd] respondent and overall facts of the instant case, I am of the considered view that the continuance of criminal proceedings against Crl.M.C. No.649 of 2017 -9- the petitioner is clearly an abuse of process and is liable to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. AnnexureA FIR in Crime No.1496 of 2016 of the Thrikkodithanam Police Station and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** ps/16/2/17