SREEDHARAN, PANKAJAVALLI, AND DANYA v. STATE OF KERALA AND DHANEESHA

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS WEDNESDAY, THE 16[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 25TH KARTHIKA,** # **1944** **CRL.MC NO. 6492 OF 2013** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 31/2012 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE** **OF FIRST CLASS -I, ALUVA** **[CRIME NO.2285/2010 OF ALUVA POLICE STATION]** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.2 TO 4:** - **1 SREEDHARAN, S/O. AGED 61, LAKSHMI VIHAR, THAIKKAVU BHAGOM, MUTTOM, THAIKKATTU KARA, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ALUVA.** - **2 PANKAJAVALLI, W/O.SREEDHARAN, AGED 58 YEARS LAKSHMI VIHAR,THAIKKAVU BHAGOM, MUTTOM, THAIKKATTU KARA, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE,ALUVA.** - **3 DANYA, W/O.PRIYESH, AGED 35 YEARS 'HARI SREE',TEMPLE CANAL ROAD, KADUNGALLUR [EAST] KARA. BY ADV SMT.M.S.KIRAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** - **2 DHANEESHA AGED 33 YEARS LAKSHMI VIHAR,THAIKKAVU BHAGOM, MUTTOM,THAIKKATTUKARA, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ALUVA.** **SRI.NOUSHAD K.A., PP** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **CRL.MC 6492/2013** **2** ## BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J ......….................................. Crl.M.C.No.6492 of 2013 ….................................. Dated this the 16th day of November, 2022 ## ORDER Petitioners are facing an indictment for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. Petitioners herein are accused Nos.2, 3 and 4, and are the father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the nd 2 respondent/defacto complainant. They have approached this Court, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings pending as C.C.No.31/2012 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva. 3. On the date of admission itself, this Court stayed all further proceedings in the trial court as against the petitioners and the interim order continued till 18.02.2020, on which date, it was extended until further orders. In the meantime, notice to the defacto complainant was ordered and even though service was effected, there is no appearance for the 2 nd respondent. **CRL.MC 6492/2013** **3** 4. Smt.M.S.Kiran, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the prosecution allegations as against the petitioners even if admitted in toto cannot end up in the conviction of the petitioners. It was further submitted that the final report, alleging offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC as against the petitioners is too vague and lacks any specific allegation, which would bring the alleged acts within the purview of Section 498A. The learned counsel further pointed out that, considering the age of the petitioners, especially that of the first and second petitioners and the close relationship with the defacto complainant, not only as daughter-in-law but also as the 2nd petitioner's brother's daughter, the trial if at all conducted can never result in a conviction. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the proceedings against the petitioners is an abuse of the process of the court and is an imminently fit case to be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 5. Sri.Noushad K.A., the learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the said contention and submitted that the allegations do make out an offence under Section 482 of IPC and that **CRL.MC 6492/2013** **4** the matter requires to be considered only after trial and after appreciating the evidence. 6. On a perusal of the first information report as well as the final report filed, it is noticed that, the son of the first and second petitioners had married the defacto complainant on 20.08.2002 and a child was born in the wedlock. Subsequently, the husband of the defacto complainant is alleged to have developed an intimacy with another lady and he used to repeatedly assault the defacto complainant. The statement of the defacto complainant reveals specific instances of assault and harassment, including harassment demanding more dowry inflicted on her by her husband-the first accused. Therefore, as against the first accused, who is not a party to this proceeding, the first information report as well as the final report makes out a case, worthy enough to be tried. 7. However, as regards petitioners, who are, as mentioned earlier, accused Nos.2 to 4, allegations against them, is totally vague. Except for a bald and general allegation of petitioners demanding more dowry and physically and mentally harassing her, there is neither any specific date **CRL.MC 6492/2013** **5** nor any year is specifically mentioned. No specific allegation is also seen made against accused Nos.2 to 4, except for a passing reference that those accused had also harassed the defacto complainant. 8. In the decision in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others v. State of Bihar and Others [AIR 2022 SC 820], the Supreme Court observed that, general omnibus allegations made in the course of a matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked can result in misuse of the process of law. The Court warned the courts from proceeding against relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them. The Supreme Court had also taken note of the tendency to employ provisions of Section 498A as instruments to settle personal scores against the relatives. In Paragraph No.18 the following was observed, - “18.The above mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of S.498A IPC 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 **CRL.MC 6492/2013** **6** 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.” 9. As mentioned earlier, a perusal of the statement of the defacto complainant, it is revealed that except for a general omnibus allegation against petitioners, no specific instances of harassment either physical or mental have been attributed to the petitioners, unlike that against the first accused. In the said circumstances, compelling the petitioners to undergo the tribulations of a criminal trial is prejudicial to the rule of law and, therefore, the proceedings in C.C.No.31/2012 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva as against petitioners i.e., accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 is an abuse of the process of court and is liable to be quashed. 10. In view of the above discussion, I am satisfied that the proceedings against accused Nos.2, 3 & 4 in **CRL.MC 6492/2013** **7** C.C.No.31/2012 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva is liable to be quashed. Ordered accordingly. This Crl.M.C. is allowed. Sd/BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AMV/22/11/2022 **CRL.MC 6492/2013** **8** ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6492/2013** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** **ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO 2285/2010 OF ALUVA POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE A2 COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO 2285/2010 OF ALUVA POLICE STATION NOW PENDING AS C.C NO 31/2012 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-1,ALUVA**