IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

Bail Appl..No.7465 OF 2019

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMC 1533/2019 DATED 11-10-2019 OF SESSIONS
COURT,KOLLAM

CRIME NO.822/2019 OF CHAVARA THEKKUMBHAGOM POLICE STATION , Kollam

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

1 SHAFEEK
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O. POOKUNJU, THATTEKKATTU THEKKATHIL,
PALACKAL, THEVELAKKARA P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

2 SAFARULLA,
AGED 39 YEARS
THATTEKKATTU THEKKATHIL , PALACKAL, THEVELAKKARA P.O,
KOLLAM DISTRICT.

3 SALEENA,
AGED 29 YEARS
THATTEKKATTU THEKKATHIL, PALACKAL,
THEVELAKKARA P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

4 AMINA BEEVI,
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O. POOKUNJU, THATTEKKATTU THEKKATHIL,
PALACKAL, THEVELAKKARA P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH

RESPONDENTS/STATE COMPLAINANT:

1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
CHAVARA THEKKUMBHAGOM POLICE STATION,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-690 524
B.A.No.7465/2019 2

3 ADDL.R3 AMINA BEEVI,
D/O JAMEELA BEEVI, AGED 25 YEARS, KALEELIL
KIZHAKETHIL, PUTHANCHANDA PO, PALAKKAL,
THEVALAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R3 AS PER ORDER DATED
12.11.2019 IN CRL.MA NO.2/2019 IN BA-7465/2019.

R3 BY ADV. SRI.AMEER.K.M.
R3 BY ADV. DR.PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN
R3 BY ADV. SMT.M.J.JESNA

OTHER PRESENT:

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.12.2019,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.7465/2019 3

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
——————————————-
B.A.No.7465 of 2019
———————————————-
Dated this the 10th day of December, 2019

ORDER

The petitioners herein have been arrayed as accused 1 to 4 among the four

accused in the instant Crime No.822/2019 of Chavara Thekkumbhagom Police

Station, Kollam District for offences punishable under Sections 498A, Section312 and Section34

of the IPC The said crime has been registered on the basis of the F.I. Statement

given by the lady de facto complainant on 23.8.2019 in respect of the alleged

incidents which happened for the period from 21.4.2014 to 2.6.2018. The lady

de facto complainant in this case is the wife of the 1 st petitioner (A1). The 2nd to

4th petitioners herein (A2 to A4) are the brother, brother’s wife and mother

respectively of the 1st petitioner herein (A1).

2. The prosecution case in short is that after the marriage of the above

said spouses, the petitioners herein in furtherance of their common intention

have subjected the lady de facto complainant to cruelty and harassment on

several occasions and that they have demanded more assets from her parents

and other near relatives. Further, the lady would complain that movable

properties including precious gold ornaments misappropriated by accused 1 to 4 .

Further that accused 1 to 4, more particularly accused No.1 had manhandled her

as she did not accede to the legal demands of the accused persons etc. It is also
B.A.No.7465/2019 4

alleged that due to the cruelty and harassment consistently suffered by her, she

was under the mental strain even during the pregnancy stage and the feeters

developed complications and she had to undergo abortion etc. Accordingly, it is

alleged that the petitioners have committed the above said offences.

3. This Court has heard in detail Sri. K. Rakesh, learned counsel for the

petitioner/accused, Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Public Prosecutor appearing

for the respondent State and Dr.Pauly Mathew Muricken, learned counsel

appearing for the additional respondent lady de facto complainant. This Court

had endeavoured to impress upon the rival parties to attempt for mediation

settlement. The good efforts taken by the learned Sessions Court could not

succeed, mainly on account of the attitude taken by the petitioners. This Court

again suggested to the parties that it may be better to examine the scope of

mediatory efforts and since more time may be consumed in the said process, the

matter could be remitted to the Sessions Court to consider the plea for

anticipatory bail and also for referring the parties to the nearest District

Mediation Centre. The learned Public Prosecutor does not have any serious

objection to the said course of action. The learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner/accused and the learned Advocate appearing for the lady de facto

complainant were seriously requested by this Court to get instructions from the

respective parties.

4. Today when the matter has been taken up for consideration,

Sri. K. Rakesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that

his parties would certainly co-operate with the mediation process in a positive
B.A.No.7465/2019 5

manner and they will attempt to take all sincere efforts to settle all outstanding

disputes with the lady de facto complainant in a fair and proper manner. Dr.

Pauly Mathew Muricken, learned Advocate appearing for the 3 rd respondent lady

de facto complainant would submit on the basis of instructions of his party that

his party is also willing for the such course of action and that the said positive

stand was taken by the lady de facto complainant in the Sessions Court also. But,

that in view of the stand taken by the petitioners, the parties could not be

referred for mediation. Further it is submitted on behalf of the lady de facto

complainant that she would sincerely and fully co-operate with the mediation

process provided the petitioners are very serious and sincere about it and they do

not use it as an excuse for prolonging the case.

5. Now that, since the petitioners have taken a very positive stand that

they would fully and sincerely co-operate with the mediation process, this Court

is of the considered view that mediatory efforts should be seriously pursued and

since the parties are all based in Kollam and since the mediation process might

take some time, it will be better to pursue the mediation proceedings at the

District Mediation Centre, Kollam, so that the parties are not unnecessarily

inconvenienced in travelling all the way from Kollam to Ernakulam. The Sessions

Court had rejected the plea of anticipatory bail as per the impugned Annexure-C

order dated 11.10.2019 in Crl.M.C. 1533/2019. This Court had queried to all the

parties concerned as to whether the matter could be remitted to the Sessions

Court for consideration of the anticipatory bail afresh and giving top and first

priority for mediation process. The rival parties and the respondent State have
B.A.No.7465/2019 6

agreed to the said suggestion of the Court. For effectuating such mediatory

efforts, it is ordered that the impugned Annexure-C order dated 11.10.2019

rendered by the Sessions Court, Kollam in Crl.M.C. 1533/2019 (arising out of

Crime No.822/2019 of Chavara Thekkkumbhagom Police Station) will stand set

aside. Consequently, the plea for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioners as

Crl.M.C.No.1533/2019 will stand remitted to the Sessions Court, Kollam for

consideration and decision afresh. The petitioners herein and the 3 rd respondent

herein shall personally appear before the Sessions Court, Kollam along with

their respective Advocates at 11 a.m. on 8.1.2020. Upon such appearance, the

Sessions Court, Kollam will ensure that the parties are immediately referred to

the District Mediation Centre, Kollam. Thereupon, the District Mediation Centre

will forthwith refer the parties to the Mediator on the same day, who will

commence it forthwith and will endeavour to complete the same within 7-8

weeks, if so feasible. Until the parties appear before the Sessions Court, Kollam

in the above case, further coercive steps including the proposed arrest of the

petitioners herein in relation to the present case shall be deferred by the

Investigating Officer. However, in case all the parties concerned volunteer

themselves for mediation process, then it is ordered that the said protective order

will continue until the conclusion of the mediation proceedings. If the

mediation process turns to be successful, then the parties may work out further

remedies in the manner known to law. On the other hand, the mediation

process turns to be failure, then the Sessions Court, Kollam will consider the plea

for anticipatory bail made in Crl.M.C. No.1533/2019 on merit and, after affording
B.A.No.7465/2019 7

reasonable opportunity of being heard to the accused persons, the de facto

complainant as well as the prosecution, should pass orders thereon without

much delay. The Registry will forward a copy of this order to the Sessions Court,

Kollam, who is dealing with Crl.M.C.No.1533/2019 for necessary information, at

the cost of the petitioners.

With these observations and directions, the above bail application will

stand disposed of.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.

acd