SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Against The Order/Judgment In … vs Chandrabose on 16 November, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939

CRL.A.No. 1071 of 2017 ()
————————–

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 1554/2017 of SESSIONS COURT,
THALASSERY DATED 16-11-2017
CRIME NO. 1363/2017 OF THALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION, KANNUR

APPELLANT(S)/ACCUSED 2-4:
————————

1. CHANDRABOSE,
S/O.PARAMU, AGED 52 YEARS, MANDAKINI HOUSE,
PARASSINIKKADAVU, AANDOOR AMSOM, THALIPPARAMBA,
KANNUR DISTRICT.

2. LALITHA
W/O.CHANDRABOSE, AGED 52 YEARS, MANDAKINI HOUSE,
PARASSINIKKADAVU, AANDOOR AMSOM, THALIPPARAMBA,
KANNUR DISTRICT.

3. SUKANYA
D/O.CHANDRABOSE, AGED 23 YEARS, MANDAKINI HOUSE,
PARASSINIKKADAVU, AANDOOR AMSOM, THALIPPARAMBA,
KANNUR DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.CHACKO
SMT.C.M.CHARISMA

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
————————–

STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTING SHO, THALIPPARAMBA POLICE STATION,
KANNUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682 031.

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.K.PRASAD

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Pn

SUNIL THOMAS, J.
——————————————-
Crl. Appeal No. 1071 of 2017
——————————————-
Dated this the 8th day of December, 2017

O R D E R

The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos. 2 to 4 in Crime

No.1363/2017 of Thalipparamba Police Station for offences

punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 323 and 324 of IPC and

Section 3(1)(S) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. According to the de facto

complainant, the 1st accused had married her on 27.10.2016. The

de facto complainant belong to SC/ST community and the 1st

accused belong to a community other than SC/ST community. It

was alleged that while the de facto complainant was residing with

the 1st accused, she was subjected to matrimonial cruelty by the

accused who are the husband and in-laws and also committed

offences punishable under Section 3(1)(S) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.

The de facto complainant laid a complaint, pursuant to which

crime was registered.

2. The petitioners apprehending arrest, moved the

learned Sessions Judge seeking anticipatory bail in

Crl.M.C.1554/2017. It was dismissed by the learned Sessions

Judge holding that in the light of bar under Section 18 of the

Crl. Appeal No. 1071 of 2017 2

SC/ST (POA) Act and from the statement of the de facto

complainant it is premature to conclude that no prima facie case

is made out against the accused so as to attract offence under

Section 3(1)(S) of the SC/ST Act. This is challenged in this appeal

by the petitioners.

3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the

petitioners that the offence under Section 3(1)(S) of the SC/ST

(POA) Act is not prima facie made out since even according to the

allegations made by the de facto complainant the offence in

relation to Section 3(1)(s) was committed inside the matrimonial

home. Hence, it could not have been within the public view. It

was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that

racial discrimination could not arise for the simple reason that the

1st accused who is a member of the family of the remaining

accused had married the de facto complainant and all of them

were living under the same roof. Hence, even if family bickerings

were there, that could not be given a racial colour thereby

invoking the provisions under the SC/ST (POA) Act.

4. It appears that there is some substance in the

contention taken up by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

Even according to the prosecution allegation, the incident arose

out of a matrimonial discord. It is also an admitted fact that the

Crl. Appeal No. 1071 of 2017 3

accused were living with the de facto complainant. Having

considered this, whether any offence under Section 3(1)(S) of

SC/ST Act may arise in the above background, is a matter to be

looked into. Since essentially the dispute is one arising from a

matrimonial dispute and a custodial interrogation as such may not

be essential, I am inclined to permit the petitioners to appear

before the investigating Officer and to undergo interrogation.

After completion of interrogation and identification, if any, they

shall be produced before the jurisdictional court on the same day

itself and any application for bail filed by them shall be

considered by the court below in the light of what is stated above

and in the light of the decisions reported in Shanu V. State of

Kerala (2000 (3) KLT 452) and Ali V. State of Kerala (2000

(2) KLT 280).

Crl. Appeal is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.

/true copy/

P. A. to Judge

Pn

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please CLICK HERE to read Group Rules, If You agree then JOIN HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DVACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA24, 125 CrPc, 307, 313, 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509 etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh