MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

Parents short stay – Name removed in 498A IPC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2019 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1941

Crl.MC.No.2118 of 2018

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 626/2017 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,TRIVANDRUM

CRIME NO.1076/2015 OF Karamana Police Station ,Thiruvananthapuram

PETITIONER/S:

1 YOGESH KUMAR SINGH, S/O.PESHKAR SINGH,AGED 36 YEARS,RESIDING AT FLAT NO.5F,HEERA FOUR PILLARS,KILLIPALAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

2 PESHKAR SINGH, S/O.GANGA PRASAD SINGH,AGED 71 YEARS,RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.1126,HBC,SECTOR NO.15A,HISAR,HARYANA.

3 VIMALA DEVI, W/O.PEHKAR SINGH,AGED 66 YEARSM RESIDING AT DO– DO–

BY ADVS.
SRI.V.N.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR
ARUN GOPALAKRISHNAN
SRI.A.CHANDRA BABU
SRI.G.VARUN

RESPONDENT/S:

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS INVESTIGATING OFFICER,IN FIR NO.1076/2015 IN C.C.NO.626/2017,CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KARAMANA/THAMPANOOR POLICE STATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

2 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,AT ERNAKULAM-682031.

3 RICHA SINGH, D/O.SOBHA SINGH,RESIDING AT E3/61,SECTOR-14,ALIGANT,LUCKNOW.

BY ADV. R.V.SUJIT KUMAR

OTHER PRESENT:

SMT.PRIYA SHANAVAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.07.2019, ALONG WITH OP(Crl.).524/2018, Tr.P(Crl.).122/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2019 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1941 OP(Crl.).No.524 of 2018

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 626/2017 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,TRIVANDRUM

PETITIONER/S:

RICHA SINGH, AGED 35 YEARS, D/O.SUDHIR KUMAR SINGH,
RESIDING AT E-3/61, SECTOR H, ALIGANJ, LUCKNOW226024.

BY ADV. SRI.R.V.SUJIT KUMAR

RESPONDENT/S:

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KARAMANA POLICE STATION,’TRIVANDRUM 695002

3 YOGESH KUMAR SINGH, S/O. PESHKAR SINGH, AGED 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 5F, HEERA FOUR PILLARS,KILLIPALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695002

4 PESHKAR SINGH, S/O. GANGA PRASAD SINGH,
AGED 71 YEARS, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO. 1126. HBC,SECTOR NO. 15A, HISAR, HARYANA 125001

5 VIMALA DEVI, W/O. PESHKAR SINGH, AGED 66 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HOUSE 1126, HBC, SECTOR NO. 15A, HISAR,HARYANA 125001

BY ADVS.
SRI.V.N.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR
A.CHANDRA BABU
ARUN GOPALAKRISHNAN
VARUN GOPALAKRISHNAN

THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.07.2019, ALONG WITH Tr.P(Crl.).122/2018, Crl.MC.2118/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2019 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1941 Tr.P(Crl.).No.122 of 2018

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 626/2017 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,TRIVANDRUM
CRIME NO.1076/2015 OF Karamana Police Station ,Thiruvananthapuram

PETITIONER/S:

RICHA SINGH, AGED 35 YEARS, D/O.SUDHIR KUMAR SINGH,
RESIDING AT E-3/61, SECTOR H, ALIGANJ, LUCKNOW -226024.

BY ADV. R.V.SUJIT KUMAR

RESPONDENT/S:

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA -682031.

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KARAMANA POLICE STATION,TRIVANDRUM-695002.

3 YOGESH KUMAR SINGH, S/O.PESHKAR SINGH, AGED 36 YEARS,
RESIDING AT FLAT NO.5F, HEERA FOUR PILLARS,KILLIPALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695002.

4 PESHKAR SINGH, S/O.GANGA PRASAD SINGH, AGED 71 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.1126, HBC, SECTOR NO.15A, HISAR,HARYANA-125001.

5 VIMALA DEVI, W/O.PESHKAR SINGH, AGED 66 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HOUSE 1126, HBC, SECTOR NO.15A, HISAR,HARYANA-125001.

READ  Whether the court must direct accused to pay interim compensation to complainant as per s.143A of NI Act?

BY ADVS.
SRI.V.N.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR
SRI.A.CHANDRA BABU

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.07.2019, ALONG WITH OP(Crl.).524/2018, Crl.MC.2118/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2019
ORDER/JUDGMENT

The abovesaid cases mainly arise out of Crime No.1076/ 2015 of Karamana Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram city, for offences punishable under Sec.498A, read with Sec.34 of the I.P.C. The3 accused in the said crime are the 3 petitioners in Crl.M.C.No. 2118/2018. The 1st petitioner (A-1) is the husband of the lady defacto complainant (R-3). 2nd and 3rd petitioners (A-2 and A-3) are the father and mother respectively of the husband (A-1). Anx.I in Crl.M.C.No.2118/2018 is the copy of the FIR in the abovesaid crime. The Police, after investigation has filed the impugned Anx.II final report/charge sheet, which has now led to the pendency of Calendar Case, C.C.No. 626/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram. The 1st petitioner herein herein is a Phd. Degree holder in Chemistry and scientist in the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO), Thiruvananthapuram. The 3rd respondent (lady defacto complainant), who is the wife of the 1st petitioner, is now working in Calcutta. All the abovesaid parties belong to northern India and the marriage between the above spouses has been solemnized on 19.4.2014 at Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. After the marriage, the 3rd respondent lady defacto complainant stayed with the parents of her husband only for 3 days in their residence in Jounpur district in Uttar Pradesh. Thereafter, the husband and wife came to Kerala and spent only about 20 days together in the State of Kerala. It appears that the abovesaid spouses are now living separately since 20.8.2014 and the 2nd respondent had gone to her house in Lucknow, in Uttar Pradesh and later in connection with her employment, she is now working in Calcutta in the State of West Bengal. The abovesaid crime has been registered on the basis of the FI statement/complaint given by the 3rd respondent on 12.5.2015. Petitioners 2 and 3 (A-2 and A-3) are elderly senior citizens. They would assert that they have never stayed with the defacto complainant anywhere in the State of Kerala and that she had stayed with them hardly for 3 days in their residence in Jounpur district in Uttar Pradesh. They would assert that the allegations of harassment and cruelty to the extent it is directed as against them are without any substance and that they have been arrayed as accused only as the 3rd respondent has certain allegations as against the 1st petitioner.

2. After hearing both sides and taking note of the fact that the 3rd respondent has resided along with the parents of the 1st petitioner only for about 3 days in Jounpur District in Uttar Pradesh, etc., this Court is inclined to accept the plea of the said petitioners that the impugned criminal proceedings to the extent it is directed as against nd and 3rd petitioners could be interdicted, as otherwise it would amount to abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly, in the interest of justice it is ordered that the impugned Anx.II final report/charge sheet filed in Crime No.1076/2015 of Karamana Police Station, which has now led to the pendency of Calendar Case, C.C.No. 626/2017 to the extent 2nd and 3rd petitioners herein (A-2 and A-3) have been arrayed as accused therein, will stand quashed. However, it is made clear that the impugned prosecution measures as against the 1st petitioner (A-1) could proceed in accordance with law. The said prosecution measures may go on untrammelled and uninfluenced in any manner with the observations and orders made by this Court in the above Crl.M.C.

READ  Bombay HC: Registered Leave and Licence agreement is not Public Document

3. Tr.P.(Crl).No.122/2018 has been filed by the wife. Her plea is that the she is now residing in Calcutta and C.C.No. 626/2017 is now on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram and that she has now secured the services of an Advocate, who is based in Ernakulam and that he finds it extremely difficult to conduct the case, if it is proceeded in Thiruvananthapuram. It is stated that earlier she was working in Kharakpur in the State of West Bengal and now she has been transferred to Calcutta in the State of West Bengal. That for the conduct of the case, she would have to travel all the way from Calcutta to Ernakulam and then come over to Thiruvananthapuram which causes unnecessary hardships to her.

4. Respondents 3, 4 and 5 in Tr.P.(Crl).No. 122/ 2018 are the husband and his parents respectively. Sri.A.Chandra Babu, learned counsel for the husband has opposed the plea for transfer of the case. Respondents 4 and 5 in the above transfer petition are no longer necessary parties, as the impugned criminal proceedings to the extent it is directed as against them have already been quashed by this Court as per the order in Crl.M.C.No.2118/2018 rendered today and has given herein above.

5. The 3rd respondent in the said transfer petition is the husband and he is working in ISRO, Thiruvananthapuram. True that if the case is transferred, he may have to travel from Thiruvananthapuram to Ernakulam. But it has to be borne in mind that if the case is transferred, the lady defacto complainant has to come all the way from Calcutta and according to her, she has already secured services of an Advocate in Ernakulam. This Court had directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, to give a report, as to which is the Magistrate Court in Ernakulam having the least work load. The Chief Judicial Magistrate Ernakulam, has now furnished report dated 12.7.2019 stating that the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-III, Ernakulam, is having the least work load in Ernakulam district.

READ  498A Quash against Brother and his wife

6. Taking note of the difficulties of the defacto complainant, this Court is inclined the consider the plea for transfer. Accordingly, it is ordered that Calendar Case, C.C.No. 626/2017 now pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram will stand transferred to the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-III, Ernakulam.

7. The Registry will forward a copy of this order to the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram, upon which the said court will transmit and forward the entire case papers in relation to Calendar Case, C.C.No. 626/2017 to the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-III, Ernakulam. The Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-III, Ernakulam, will thereafter issue notices to the husband, who is now the sole accused, as well as to the wife intimating the fact about the receipt of the case records and then may proceed in accordance with law. In case the husband accused has not so far been granted bail after taking cognizance, then the accused (husband) may make application in that regard without any further delay and in case any non-bailable warrant has been issued against him, the same will be kept in abeyance for a period of 3 months in order to enable him to make necessary application for grant of bail. Thereafter, the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-III, Ernakulam, will complete the trial in respect of the above said Calendar Case, without any further delay, from the date of receipt of the case records.

8. The prayer in O.P(Crl.) No.524/2018 filed by the wife is for expeditious completion of the trial in the above case. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, it is ordered that the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-III, Ernakulam, will take all necessary steps to ensure that the trial in respect of the above transferred case is expedited and concluded without much delay.

With these observations and directions, the above Crl.M.C., Tr.P.(Crl).and O.P(Crl.) will stand finally disposed of.

Sd/-
sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 2118/2018
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT ALONG WITH THE COMPLAINT OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 13.8.2015.
ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 12.8.2015.
ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF HONEYMOON DAYS WHICH ARE EXHIBITED IN THE FACEBOOK OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

APPENDIX OF OP(Crl.) 524/2018
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CC 626/2017 OF JFCM-1, TRIVANDRUM

APPENDIX OF Tr.P(Crl.) 122/2018
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CC.626/2017 OF JFCM-1, TRIVANDRUM.

Leave a Reply


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Important SC/HC Judgements on 498A IPC
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2020 MyNation KnowledgeBase
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

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

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Section 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

READ  Whether the court must direct accused to pay interim compensation to complainant as per s.143A of NI Act?
MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation