SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Subadra Amma vs Nil on 9 April, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1941

Crl.MC.No. 769 of 2014

IN THE MATTER OF CC 2618/2013 JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
-II,PALAKKAD

CRIME NO. 571/2013 OF Kongad Police Station, Palakkad

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 AND 3:

1 SUBADRA AMMA,
W/O LATE RAGHAVAN NAIR, KEERANGATT HOUSE, KOOTUPATHA,
NOW RESIDING AT POLLEKKAT HOUSE, MUNDOOR P.O,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT

2 SUGUNA
D/O LATE RAGHAVAN NAIR, POOLLEKKAT HOUSE, MUNDUR, NOW
RESIDING AT HOUSE NO 18/1 GOKULAM, L.T.O COLONY,
SIDCO (POST), COIMBATORE 21

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD)

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT

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

2 DEEPA, AGED 34 YEARS,
W/O VIJAYARAGHAVAN, ‘KRISHNA KRIPA’, SREE SREE NAGAR,
VENOLI ROAD, KALLEPPULLY POST,
PALAKKAD 680007

BY ADVS.
SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR
SMT.V.SHYLAJA
SMT.K.K.SHEEBA PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.04.2019,
THE COURT ON 09.04.2019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.769/2014
2

R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J
************************
Crl.M.C.No.769 of 2014
—————————————–
Dated this the 9th day of April, 2019

ORDER

The petitioners are the second and the third accused in

the case C.C.No.2618/2013 on the file of the Court of the

Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Palakkad. The petition is

filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) to quash the

proceedings against them in the aforesaid case.

2. The first petitioner is the mother-in-law and the

second petitioner is the sister-in-law of the second

respondent. The husband of the second respondent is the

first accused in the case C.C.No.2618/2013. The case

against the petitioners was registered as Crime No.571/2013

of Kongad police station on the basis of the complaint filed

by the second respondent in the Magistrate’s Court
Crl.M.C.No.769/2014
3

concerned, which was forwarded to police for investigation

under Section 156(3) of the Code. After completing the

investigation in the case, the police filed chargesheet against

the petitioners and the husband of the second respondent

for the offence punishable under Section 498A read with 34

I.P.C.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the

learned Public Prosecutor and also the learned counsel for

the second respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that

there are no averments in the complaint filed by the second

respondent to implicate the petitioners for an offence

punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. On the other hand,

learned counsel for the second respondent would contend

that the petitioners and the husband of the second

respondent had together mentally and physically harassed

the second respondent in connection with the demand made

by them for money. Learned counsel would submit that the

averments in the complaint filed by the second respondent
Crl.M.C.No.769/2014
4

constitute an offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C

against the petitioners.

5. The averments in the complaint filed by the

second respondent (who is referred to as ‘the complainant’

in this paragraph) against her husband and the petitioners

are as follows: The marriage between the complainant and

the first accused was on 21.04.2002. Thereafter, they lived

together in the house of the first accused. The complainant

had fifty sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of the

marriage. But, the accused showed hatred towards her for

the reason that there was no money given as dowry. The

complainant had to suffer the mental and physical

harassment inflicted on her by the accused in relation to

their demand for dowry. When the second accused came to

know that the complainant was pregnant, she got angry and

locked up the complainant in the bathroom. After delivery,

when the complainant and the child were brought to the

house of the accused, the first and the second accused

obtained an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the father of the
Crl.M.C.No.769/2014
5

complainant. When the complainant again got pregnant, the

first and the second accused approached doctors to

terminate the pregnancy but no one was ready to do so.

After delivery of the second child, when the complainant and

the child were brought to the house of the accused, the

accused demanded Rs.1,50,000/- but the father of the

complainant could give them only an amount of Rs.50,000/-.

The accused mentally and physically harassed the

complainant saying that atleast an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-

shall be given. The first and the second accused took the

gold ornaments of the complainant and they were utilised by

the first accused. The first and the second accused tortured

the complainant demanding money. The third accused,

along with the other accused, ousted the complainant and

the children from the house .

6. On a careful scrutiny of the averments in the

complaint, it can be found that there are sufficient

averments against the first petitioner, who is the second

accused, which spell out the ingredients of an offence
Crl.M.C.No.769/2014
6

punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. There is a specific

allegation against the first petitioner that she locked up the

second respondent in the bathroom. There are specific

allegations against the first petitioner that she had harassed

the second respondent with a view to coerce her to meet the

demand for money. Whether such allegations are true or

not cannot be considered in a petition under Section 482 of

the Code. Suffice it to hold that there is no sufficient ground

to quash the proceedings against the first petitioner.

7. The second petitioner is the sister of the husband

of the second respondent. There is no specific allegation

against her in the complaint that she subjected the second

respondent to cruelty. There is no allegation against the

second petitioner that she committed any act which was

likely to drive the second respondent to commit suicide or to

cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health.

There is no specific allegation against the second petitioner

that she had harassed the second respondent with a view to

coerce the second respondent or any of her relatives to meet
Crl.M.C.No.769/2014
7

any unlawful demand for money or other property. The

allegations against the second petitioner are vague and

general in nature. The only specific allegation against the

second petitioner is that she, along with the other accused in

the case, ousted the second respondent from the house.

The date and particulars of such incident are not mentioned

in the complaint. There is no specific allegation against the

second petitioner that she committed any specific act with a

view to oust the second respondent from the house. In

these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the

complaint filed by the second respondent, which formed the

basis for initiating the proceedings against the second

petitioner, does not contain sufficient averments constituting

the ingredients of an offence punishable under Section 498A

I.P.C against her.

8. No active involvement of the second petitioner in

the matrimonial dispute between the second respondent and

her husband is alleged. On the basis of general and vague

allegations raised against her, the second petitioner cannot
Crl.M.C.No.769/2014
8

be ordered to undergo the ordeal of a trial. Continuing the

proceedings against the second petitioner would be an abuse

of process of the court and therefore, the proceedings

against her are liable to be quashed.

9. Consequently, the petition is allowed in part. The

prayer for quashing the proceedings against the first

petitioner is rejected. The proceedings against the second

petitioner in C.C.No.2618/2013 on the file of the Court of

the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Palakkad, based on

Annexure 5 charge sheet, are quashed. It is made clear

that the proceedings against the second petitioner alone

stand terminated.

(sd/-)

R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE
jsr
Crl.M.C.No.769/2014
9

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE P1 ANNEXURE 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT
AND FIR IN KONGAD POLICE STATION CRIME
NO 571/2013

ANNEXURE P2 ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE AGENT’S
CARD ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER BY
THE SBI LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

ANNEXURE P3 ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY
CARD ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER BYU
THE UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION AUTHORITY OF
INDIA

ANNEXURE P4 ANNEXURE 4 TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY
CARD ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA,

ANNEXURE P5 ANNEXURE 5 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL
REPORT DATED 25-08-2013 FILED IN KONGAD
POLICE CIRME NO 571/13 WHICH IS TAKEN
AS FILE AS CC 2618/13 BY JFMC II

RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:

NIL

TRUE COPY
PS TO JUDGE

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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