Quashed

Biji George v. Jicku Jacob

Kerala HC29 Oct 2012Crl.MC/2308/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed criminal proceedings against a nurse accused of defamation by her former husband. The husband filed a complaint imputing poor character immediately after the Family Court adjudicated severe marital disputes in the petitioner's favor and upheld their custody rights, deeming the prosecution an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Criminal complaint dated 07.04.2006 and proceedings in C.C.No.376 of 2006 quashed.

Biji George Vs Jicku Jacob — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/7TH KARTHIKA 1934

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2308 of 2012 ()

¶6

CC.373/2006 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS-II, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

BIJI GEORGE, D/O.M.J.GEORGE, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 12 LITTLETON CLOSE, STAFFORD, ST 163 LN, ENGLAND U.K., (MUTHANATTU HOUSE, THANKAMONY P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT)

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.R. SUNIL

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANTS:

¶11

JICKU JACOB, VETTUKETTIL HOUSE, VANDANMEDU, NETTITHOZHU P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶12

STATE OF KERAA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶13

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

DSV/-

¶16

Crl.MC.No. 2308 of 2012 ()

¶17

		APPENDIX
PETITION	ER(S)	EXHIBITS :
ANNEXURE	A1	COPY OF LAWYER NOTICE SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT THROUGH HIS LAWYER DATED 13.02.2006. AND 22.02.2006
ANNEXURE	A2	COPY OF LAWYER NOTICE SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT THROUGH HIS LAWYER DATED 22.02.2006
ANNEXURE	A3	COPY OF THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT DATED 07.04.2006
ANNEXURE	A4	COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 02.04.2012 SUBMITTED BY HIS COUNSEL
ANNEXURE	A5	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.05.2012 IN M.P.NO.1135/2012.
ANNEXURE	A6	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.10.2005 IN WRIT PETITION (CRL.NO.201/2005) PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
ANNEXURE	A7	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.04.2008 IN O.P.NO.118/2006
RESPONDE	NTS'	EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

DSV/-

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.

¶22

----------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2308 of 2012 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 29^th day of October, 2012

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

Petitioner is the accused in a pending case on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Ernakulam. She is being prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, on a complaint given by her former husband at a time when their marital relationship subsisted. Annexure A3 is copy of the complaint. Some statements, rather allegations, made by the petitioner in her writ petition before this court seeking issue of a writ of habeas Corpus or direction or order for production of her child who was allegedly taken into forcible custody by her

¶25

Crl.M.C.No.2308 of 2012

¶26

:: 2 ::

¶27

husband, is the basis for filing Annexure A3 complaint imputing that the statements made in her petition had damnified his reputation before the general public. Petitioner is employed as a nurse in the United Kingdom. Pursuant to orders passed in the writ petition, child is presently in her custody. It is also not in dispute that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition and orders passed thereof, petitioner had filed two

¶28

petitions, one for severing her marital relationship with the first respondent/ complainant and the other to declare her as the guardian of the only child born out of their wedlock. Both these petitions have been allowed after a contested trial by the Family Court, Thodupuzha. Annexure A7 is copy of the common judgment rendered by the Family Court in the above two proceedings.

¶29

Crl.M.C.No.2308 of 2012

¶30

:: 3 ::

¶31

Petitioner, who, as already stated,

¶32

employed in the United Kingdom, moved an application before the magistrate seeking exemption from personal appearance during the trial of the case. Annexure A4 is copy of that petition. To that petition, the 1^st respondent/ complainant raised objections, and upholding such objections, learned magistrate has passed Annexure A5 order turning down the request for exemption. Impeaching Annexure A5 order, she has filed the above petition invoking the inherent powers of this court to grant her the relief canvassed for in Annexure A4 petition.

¶33

I heard the counsel on both sides.

¶34

After hearing the submissions made by

¶35

the counsel, and also looking into the annexures produced with the petition as well, I find, continuation of the criminal proceedings against

¶36

Crl.M.C.No.2308 of 2012

¶37

:: 4 ::

¶38

the petitioner, in the given facts of the case, is nothing but an abuse of process of the court. Going through Annexure A7 order passed by the Family Court, it is seen, petitioner and also another witness - her mother - were examined in such proceedings, whereunder she had sought for divorce and also a declaration that she is the guardian of the minor child born out of the wedlock with the 1^st respondent. Materials were produced, as could been seen from Annexure A7 order, to substantiate her case as to the mental instability of the 1^st respondent, and, also that he is a drunkard. Cruelty imputed against the petitioner by the 1^st respondent husband, after adjudication of the disputes covered by the proceedings, was found trustworthy, reliable and convincing to the learned Judge of the Family Court. As between the parties the finding so

¶39

Crl.M.C.No.2308 of 2012

¶40

:: 5 ::

¶41

entered is conclusive since there is no challenge against the orders passed by the Judge of the Family Court. It is also seen, the case advanced by the petitioner in her writ petition for habeas corpus alleging that the child on her arrival at the Airport, Thiruvananthapuram, was forcefully taken away by the husband/father was also accepted by this court in passing of orders enabling her to get back the custody of the child. Annexure A6 is the judgment rendered by this court in that writ petition. When that be the case, complaint filed by the husband against the petitioner, that too taking exception the statements in the writ petition alleging that he is not having sound mental capacity and is a habitual drunkard, that alone, and circumstance of the criminal proceedings therefrom, would be nothing but an abuse of process of the court. Section 482

¶42

Crl.M.C.No.2308 of 2012

¶43

:: 6 ::

¶44

of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates of intervention by this court by exercise of its inherent powers to quash such proceedings where that such proceedings are mala fide and solely intended to vex and harass the opposite party. Annexure A3 and proceedings in C.C.No.376 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Ernakulam, are quashed under Section 482 of the Code.

¶45

Crl.M.C is disposed of as above.

¶46

Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE

¶47

sk/-

¶48

//true copy//

Biji George v. Jicku Jacob

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biji George v. Jicku Jacob

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anuroop K.K. Vs State of Kerala

C.Lalaji Vs State of Kerala

Rameshan Vs the Excise Inspector

Valsala.K.C. Vs State of Kerala

T.Michael Sorna Durai Vs Dolly Issac

Babu @ Babuji & Others Vs State of Kerala