IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
TUESDAY ,THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 8TH KARTHIKA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 1079 of 2016
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 2518/2015 of J.M.F.C.-II,
THRISSUR
CRIME NO. 618/2015 OF NEDUPUZHA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS.2 TO 5
1 VASU, AGED 67 YEARS
S/O.RAMAN, KILAVANPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHIYYARAM DESOM
VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
2 PUSHPA, AGED 63 YEARS
W/O.VASU, KILAVANPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHIYYARAM DESOM
VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
3 SHAIJU, AGED 41 YEARS
S/O.VASU, KILAVANPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHIYYARAM DESOM
VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
4 RAGHI, AGED 31 YEARS
W/O.SHAIJU, KILAVANPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHIYYARAM DESOM
VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT
RESPONDENT/STATE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM 682031.
2 NANTHITHA K.N, AGED 36 YEARS
D/O.NANTHANAN, KADOOKADAN HOUSE, MANITHARA,
CHOOLISSERY PO, AVANNUR VILLAGE,
THRISSUR DISTRICT 680301.
BY ADV. SRI.M.PREMCHAND
OTHER PRESENT:
PP SMT.V.SREEJA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.10.2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 1079 of 2016
2
O R D E R
Petitioners stand arrayed as accused Nos.2 to 5
in C.C. No.2518/2015 of Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court II, Thrissur for offences
punishable under Sections 406, 498(A) read with
Section 34 IPC. According to the prosecution, the
1st accused had married the 2nd respondent on
05.09.2004. Two children were born in the
matrimonial relationship. In the meanwhile, the 2nd
respondent laid a complaint alleging matrimonial
cruelty. It was stated that gold ornaments worth
46 sovereigns given to her at the time of marriage
was misappropriated. It was also stated that
accused Nos.2 and 5 demanded more dowry. Pursuant
to the complaint lodged, crime was registered as
Crime No.618/2015 of Nedupuzha Police Station,
Thrissur District and after investigation Annexure
C final report has been laid.
2. Petitioners who are accused Nos. 2 to 5
Crl.MC.No. 1079 of 2016
3
have approached this court to quash the
proceedings. According to the learned counsel for
the petitioners, Annexure A is the complaint
submitted to the Police. It refers to the alleged
misconduct on the part of the husband. The 1st
petitioner is her husband’s father, 2nd petitioner
his mother, 3rd petitioner his brother and 4th
petitioner is the wife of the 3rd petitioner.
3. It was alleged in the complaint that on the
date of marriage, petitioners 1 to 4 directed the
2nd respondent to remove the gold ornaments and to
hand it over to them. It is stated that the
offence under Section 406 IPC is attracted since
the entire money and gold ornaments were misused by
the accused.
4. In answering this allegation, learned
counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to
the final report wherein it is specifically stated
that on the request of the 3rd accused, the gold
Crl.MC.No. 1079 of 2016
4
ornaments were removed by CW1/the wife and
thereafter the 1st accused failed to return the gold
ornaments. According to the learned counsel, to
constitute an offence under Section 406 IPC, there
must be clear evidence regarding entrustment and
misappropriation. It was held that the available
evidence on record indicates that the gold
ornaments were entrusted to the 1st accused though
the 1st accused did not return it. According to the
learned counsel, this clearly shows that the de
facto complainant was proceeding on the basis that
it was the 1st accused who had misappropriated the
gold ornaments.
5. A perusal of the complaint shows that
specific and definite acts of cruelty are
attributed to the 1st accused. Though there are
certain allegations against the petitioners, the
complaint shows that most of the allegations are
generalized in nature. The specific date of the
Crl.MC.No. 1079 of 2016
5
incident of acts committed by the petitioners is
not forthcoming.
Having considered this, I feel that an offence
under Section 498A will not lie as against the
petitioners herein. Hence, I am inclined to hold
that Section 406 IPC cannot lie against the
petitioners. Consequently, the remaining offences
have also could not be fastened on the petitioners.
Accordingly, Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further
proceedings in C.C.No.2518/2015 of Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court II, Thrissur to the extent
it affects accused Nos. 2 to 5 stand quashed.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE
Crl.MC.No. 1079 of 2016
6
APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FIELD BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE THRISSUR TOWN
WEST POLICE
ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE FIR REGISTERED BY THE
NEDUPUZHA POLICE IN CRIME NO.618/2015
ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED BY
THE NEDUPUZHA POLICE
ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE
THRISSUR CORPORATION
ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF THE VOTERS ID CARD IN
RESPECT OF THE 3RD PETITIONER
ANNEXURE F TRUE COPY OF THE AADHAR CARD ID CARD IN
RESPECT OF THE 4TH PETITIONER SHOWING
SEPARATE RESIDENCE
Pn 01/11
