SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Nisi N. Mathews vs The State Of Kerala on 4 March, 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

WEDNESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1941

Bail Appl..No.492 OF 2020

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 1666/2019 DATED 14-01-2020 OF
DISTRICT COURT SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM

CRIME NO.1329/2019 OF Ezhukone Police Station , Kollam

PETITIONER:

1 NISI N. MATHEWS
AGED 61 YEARS
W/O. LATE K.K. KOSHY PANICKER, VOLVO VILLA,
IRUMPANAGADU P.O. EZHUKONE POST, KOLLAM 691 505.

2 SHON.K. PANICKER,
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O. LATE K.K. KOSHY PANICKER, VOLVO VILLA,
IRUMPANAGADU P.O. EZHUKONE POST, KOLLAM 691 505.

BY ADVS.
SRI.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER
SMT.TINA ALEX THOMAS

RESPONDENTS:

1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EZHUKONE
POLICE STATION).

2 ADDL.R2 ANN SUSAN LUKE
AGED 33 YEARS, D/O SUSAN LUKOSE, TC 3/509, PUTHENVILA
VEEDU, GANDHISMARAKA NAGAR,
MUTTADA PO, PEROORKADA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-25, KERALA.

IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R2 AS PER THE ORDER DATED
27/1/2020 IN CRL.MA NO.1/2020.

R2 BY ADV. SMT.K.L.LAKSHMI RANI

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.492 OF 2020

2

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 492/2020

Dated this the 4th day of March 2020

O R D E R

The petitioners herein have been arrayed as accused 2 and 3 among

the 4 accused in the instant Annexure A1 Crime No. 1329/2019 of

Ezhukone Police Station which has been registered for offences punishable

under Section 498A of the IPC, pursuant to the directions issued by the

learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the CrPC based on the

allegations disclosed in the private criminal complaint filed by the 2 nd

respondent lady defacto complainant. Accused No.1 is the husband of the

2nd respondent lady defacto complainant. The petitioners herein (A2 and

A3) are the mother and elder brother respectively of A1. Accused No.4 is

the wife of the 2nd petitioner (A3).

2. The brief of the prosecution case is that, after the marriage

between A1 and the 2nd respondent lady defacto complainant on

14/07/2014, while she was staying along with accused persons, accused 1

and 2 had taken a total amount of Rs.11 lakhs from the 2 nd respondent and

had misappropriated it and have also taken her gold ornaments and have

misappropriated it and that the accused persons had consistently treated

her with cruelty and harassment and had demanded that she should bring
Bail Appl..No.492 OF 2020

3

more money and gold ornaments and used to harass her stating that the

dowry amount brought by her was less and that A1 had refused to continue

the marital life and A1 had refused to take medical treatment for his

reproductive problems and that the accused persons have thereby

committed the above said offences.

3. The counsel for the petitioners would point out that the above

said allegations are false and baseless and that the petitioners would fully

co-operate with the investigation process and that this Court may order to

grant him anticipatory bail subject to any stringent conditions. Learned

prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent lady

defacto complainant have opposed the plea for anticipatory bail. Learned

counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent would point out that accused No.1

is still abroad and has not come back to India and that two levels of

mediation processes were effected at the instance of the Sessions Court,

Kollam at the time of consideration of the anticipatory bail application filed

by the petitioners herein and the accused persons have taken an adamant

stand though the 2nd respondent had made certain reasonable suggestions

for effecting compromise and that the intention of the accused persons,

more particularly A1 is to prolong the legal proceedings now pending

before the Family Court as well as before the Domestic Violence Court.

Further that based on the complaints filed by the 2 nd respondent, now
Bail Appl..No.492 OF 2020

4

Calender Case CC No.345/2019 is pending before the Chief Judicial

Magistrate’s Court, Thiruvananthapuram for offences punishable under

Sections 67(A) of the Information Technology Act, in which the accused

persons therein is the A1 herein (husband of the 2nd respondent).

4. After hearing both sides and after careful evaluation of the facts

and circumstances of this case and taking note of the specific nature of the

allegations raised against these petitioners, this Court is of the considered

view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be really

necessary or imperative for effectuating the smooth and effective conduct

of investigation of this crime. However, the learned prosecutor has pointed

out that till date the petitioners have not co-operated with the investigating

process by appearing before the IO. The counsel for the 2 nd respondent has

voiced serious complaints on behalf of the 2 nd respondent that the accused

persons are trying to prolong the litigative proceedings and that the 2 nd

respondent is literally without any money and that her money and gold

ornaments have been misappropriated by the accused persons and that she

is almost a destitute and is living only on the mercy of her parents. This

Court is proposing to issue specific directions to ensure that the above said

litigative proceedings are finalized without much delay, so that the above

said complaints of the 2nd respondent could be alleviated atleast to a certain

extent. It is stated by the counsel for the 2 nd respondent that initially
Bail Appl..No.492 OF 2020

5

accused no.1 was the sole respondent in OP 2839/2018 and later the other

accused persons herein (A2 to A4) have also been impleaded as additional

respondents in the said OP.

5. In view of the above submission of the learned prosecutor, it is

only to be held that the petitioners are obliged in law to immediately co-

operate with the IO by appearing before him and then co-operate with the

interrogation process. Accordingly the following directions and orders are

passed.

(I) The petitioners will immediately personally appear
before the IO concerned in relation to this crime for
interrogation process without any further delay at any rate by
9 am on any day on or before 18/03/2020.

(ii) The petitioners will fully co-operate with the IO in the
interrogation process.

(iii) After the interrogation process is over in case the IO
arrests the petitioners in relation to the instant case, then the
petitioners may be released on bail on their executing bond for
Rs.40,000/- and on their furnishing 2 solvent sureties each for
the like sum, both to the satisfaction of the IO concerned.

6. However in such eventuality, the grant of bail will be subject to

the following conditions.

(1). Petitioners will report before the IO at any time between
10 am and 1 am on all 2nd and 4th Saturdays, for the next 4 months at
any time between 9 am and 1 pm and thereafter they will appear
before the IO as and when directed by him.

Bail Appl..No.492 OF 2020

6

(2). The petitioners will fully co-operate with the
investigation.

(3). Petitioners shall not influence the witnesses or shall not
tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner.

(4). The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offences of
similar nature.

(5). If there is any violation of the abovesaid conditions by the
petitioner then the jurisdictional court concerned stand hereby
empowered, to consider the plea for cancellation of bail at the
appropriate time.

7. Based on the submissions of the parties, it is seen that the 2 nd

respondent has filed OP No. 2839/2018 before the Family Court,

Thiruvananthapuram seeking for realization of money and return of gold

ornaments. So also the 2nd respondent has filed MC No. 79/2018 before the

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court Thiruvananthapuram, under Section

12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in which

all the 4 accused persons herein have been arrayed as respondents therein

and that the said MC is pending before the said learned Magistrate.

8. Further it is also seen that based on the private criminal

complaint filed by the 2nd respondent, now Calender Case CC No. 345/2019

is pending before the CJM Court, Thiruvananthapuram, for offences

punishable under section 67A of the IT act, in which A1 herein has been

arrayed as the sole accused therein. Based on the directives issued by this

Court, the learned CJM Thiruvananthapuram has furnished report dated
Bail Appl..No.492 OF 2020

7

27/02/2020, in which it is stated that the case has been posted for

appearance of the accused from 12/03/2020 and the case was not referred

to mediation since the appearance of the parties has not been completed.

The counsel for the 2nd respondent has voiced a complaint that accused no.

1 herein (sole accused in CC No. 345/2019) on the file of the CJM

Thiruvananthapuram, is still abroad and that it is the intention of the

accused therein to prolong the said criminal case and the other cases

indefinitely, in order to spite the 2nd respondent.

9. The counsel for the petitioner would submit that he is not

representing A1 and that attempt will be made to convey to accused no.1

through the petitioners herein that he should reach back India so as to co-

operate with the finalization of the above said cases without any further

delay. The CJM Court will take necessary steps to ensure that the matter in

relation to CC NO.345/2019 is expedited without any further delay. Taking

note of the fact that the accused and the defacto complainant therein are

spouses, efforts may be made by the CJM, Thiruvananthapuram to refer

the parties to mediation process, if the accused is co-operative in that

regard. If the accused is not co-operative in that regard, then the learned

Magistrate will ensure that all reasonable endeavors may be taken to

ensure that the trial in relation to the said Calender Case CC NO. 345/2019

is duly completed without much delay, preferably within a period of 6 to 8
Bail Appl..No.492 OF 2020

8

months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

10. Further it is also ordered that the Family Court,

Thiruvananthapuram will take all reasonable endeavors possible in these

circumstances to ensure that the parties in OP No.2839/2018 are referred

for mediation without much delay. However if any one of the respondents

therein, more particularly R1 (A1 herein) is not co-operating with the

mediation process, then necessary steps should be taken to ensure that the

matter is not prolonged indefinitely on account of the non-co-operation of

any of the respondents. In that scenario, all reasonable endeavours should

be taken by the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram to ensure that the

matter in OP NO.2839/2018 is finally disposed of without much delay,

preferably within a period of 10 months from the date of production of a

certified copy of this order. Further it is also ordered that the CJM Court

Thiruvananthapuram may also take up the matter in MC 79/2018 and may

also ensure that reasonable opportunity may be given to the parties to

resolve their disputes through mediation process and if any of the

respondents therein, more particularly R1 therein (A1 herein), does not co-

operate with the mediation process in any manner, then it shall be ensured

that the matter should not be prolonged indefinitely. If the mediation

process is not finalized due to any reason within 2 months, then it shall be

ensured that the matter in MC No.79/2018 should be finally disposed
Bail Appl..No.492 OF 2020

9

without much delay, preferably within a period of 6 months from the date

of production of a certified copy of this order.

11. Registry will ensure that copies of this order are furnished to

the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram who is dealing with OP No.

218/2018, the CJM Court, Thiruvananthapuram who is dealing with CC

No.345/2019 and also to the JFCM Court Thiruvananthapuram, who is

dealing with MC No.79/2018 for necessary information and further action.

With these observations and directions, the above Bail Application

will stand disposed of.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS

Nsd JUDGE
//true copy//
PA to Judge

Leave a Reply

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


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

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 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 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 Sectioin 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…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation