Petitioner sought to quash FIR under Section 498-A IPC alleging non-marriage with Muslim respondent. Court declined interference under Section 482 CrPC as trial had commenced and prior adjudication would prejudice the investigation.
Petition to quash FIR dismissed; no interference with ongoing trial proceedings granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN
MONDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER, 2007 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1929
Crl.MC.No. 164 of 2004 (A)
-----------------------------(FIR NO.390/2003 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ALATHUR)
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
K.NARAYANAN, S/O. KUMARAN, AGED 62 YEARS, RIFA HOUSE, BEHIND CHITHRANJALI THEATRE, PAZHAMBALAKKODU, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SMT.JEENA JOSEPH SRI.G.D.PANICKER
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/STATE:
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.KAMAPPU BY ADV. SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 12/11/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
Crl.M.C.No. 164 of 2004 - A
Dated this the 12th day of November, 2007
O R D E R
This Crl.M.C. is filed with a prayer to quash Annexure-A1 F.I.R. registered in the Alathur Police Station as F.I.R.No.390 of 2003 for the offence under Section 498 (A) of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner who is the sole accused in the above crime. Crime No.390 of 2003 of Alathur Police Station was registered on 31.12.2003 on the basis of the information furnished by the first respondent against the petitioner. According to the first respondent, the petitioner married the first respondent on 23.2.2003 and thereafter, she was residing along with the respondents in his house. Thereafter, according to the defacto complainant, after two months, the petitioner had taken all her gold ornaments and he had started demanding more money and abused her. It is the specific case of the defacto complainant that on 28.8.2003, the defacto complainant went to her house and thereafter, she lived with him in his residence. Along with the M.C.,
Crl.M.C. NO.164 of 2004
:-2-:
the petitioner herein has produced Annexure A2 reply notice in which the petitioner has denied that the first respondent is a legally wedded wife of the petitioner. Thus, according to the petitioner, there is no legal marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent and therefore, no offence under Section 498 (A) of the Indian Penal Code will lie against the petitioner and if the petitioner is permitted to undergo the ordeal of trial, it will amount to abuse of process of the court and hence the F.I.R. is to be quashed.
Crl.M.C. NO.164 of 2004
:-3-:
between the petitioner and the first respondent. Learned counsel further submits that as pointed out in Annexure-II reply notice, the petitioner has no previous acquaintance with the first respondent and when he was admitted in an Ayurveda Hospital, there is nothing more than mere acquaintance. Thus, according to counsel for the petitioner, there is no valid marriage. If there is no valid marriage, no offence under Section 498 (A) of the Indian Penal Code will lie against the petitioner.
Crl.M.C. NO.164 of 2004
:-4-:
examined and therefore, this Court may not interfere at this stage.
Crl.M.C. NO.164 of 2004
:-5-:
raised from the part of the respondents are having far reaching consequences and any finding on those pleadings is likely to affect adversely either of the parties during trial of the case. Therefore, according to me, this Court shall not interfere at this stage. In the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Crl.M.C. deserves no consideration and the same is dismissed.
V.K.MOHANAN, Judge
Mbs/
Crl.M.C. NO.164 of 2004
:-6-:
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
O.P.NO. OF 2001
J U D G M E N T
DATED: -0-2007
Crl.M.C. NO.164 of 2004
:-7-:
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 498-A IPC applies when an inter-religious union lacks formal marriage ceremonies but the parties reside together as husband and wife.
Whether the High Court can quash an FIR under Section 482 CrPC when the trial has already commenced after investigation is completed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Aravindan v. State of KeralaReferred¶36
Aravindan v. State of Kerala (2005 (3) KLT 157)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
K.NARAYANAN
D.A.SHAHIDA
STATE OF KERALA
V.K.MOHANAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
V.K.MOHANAN
Parties & counsel
