Dismissed

Paramu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Oct 2012Crl.MC/3116/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged dowry-related criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, arguing an advocate notice proved baseless allegations. The court held that an advocate notice alone is insufficient to quash proceedings where a final police report exists and defences are available during trial. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petition to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed.

Paramu Vs State of Kerala — Dowry and Cruelty | 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 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/16TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3116 of 2012 (D)

¶6

IN CC.621/2012 of J.M.F.C., KODUNGALLUR

¶7

PETITIONERS /ACCUSED : -

¶8

1. PARAMU, AGED 73 YEARS, S/O. SANKARAN, THARAMMAL HOUSE, MANATHALA BEACH, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR.

¶9

2. THANKAM, AGED 58 YEARS W/O. PARAMU, THARAMMAL HOUSE, MANATHALA BEACH, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.K.K.CHANDRADAS SRI.S.VIDYASAGAR

¶11

RESPONDENTS : -

¶12

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682011.

¶13

2. PARAMU, AGED 52 YEARS, (DEFACTO COMPLAINANT), S/O. AJAPPAN, PICHILY HOUSE, THALIKULAM, KODUNGALLOOR - 680 664.

¶14

3. SUMESH (1ST ACCUSED ABSCONDING), AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. PARAMU, THARAMMAL HOUSE, MANTHALA BEACH, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR - 680 664.

¶15

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R. REMA

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Crl.MC.No. 3116 of 2012 (D)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES :

¶20

ANNEXURE A1 :	CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET (CRIME 870/2011 OF VALAPPAD POLICE STATION) FILED AS C.C. 621/2012 ON THE FILE OF J.F.M.C. KODUNGALLOOR.
ANNEXURE A2 :	TRUE COPY OF MARRIAGE INVITATION PRINTED BY THE PETITIONERS FOR RECEPTION OF THE MARRIAGE ON 15.07.2011 BETWEEN 3 TO 5 P.M. IN THE UNNIREE MEMORIAL HALL, CHAVAKKAD.

¶21

ANNEXURE A3 :	TRUE COPY OF LAWYER NOTICE SENT BY
	Sri. T.RAMACHANDRAN ADVOCATE CALLING FOR TO PAY
	COMPENSATION AND WITHDRAWAL OF MARRIAGE ON 13.7.2011.

¶22

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES : NIL.

// TRUE COPY //

P.A. TO JUDGE

DMR/-

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,J.

¶27

--------------------------------------Crl.M.C. NO. 3116 of 2012

¶28

Dated this the 08^th day of October, 2012

¶29

ORDER

¶30

Petitioners are two among the accused in a case pending trial on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodungalloor. They are being prosecuted with another for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 417 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioners are the parents of One Sumesh whose marriage with one Sruthilaya was fixed and arranged by the families on both sides. Engagement for such marriage also followed with ring exchange. However two days before the marriage, a notice was issued from the side of the bride demanding compensation alleging that the bridegroom and his parents raising unlawful demand of dowry had withdrawn from the marriage. A complaint to the police followed which led to registration of a crime for the offence under the Dowry

¶31

Crl.M.C. NO. 3116 of 2012

¶32

¶33

Prohibition Act, and after investigation indictment of the petitioners and their son for offences stated supra. The

¶34

above petition has been filed to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners in the case invoking the inherent powers of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short the 'Code'.

¶35

I heard the learned counsel for petitioners and also the learned Public Prosecutor. Allegations imputed against the petitioners and their son to proceed against them for the offences imputed are baseless, unfounded and absolutely false, is the submission of the counsel submitting that they too have made arrangement for conducting the marriage and also later a reception inviting close friends and relatives. A story of unlawful demand for dowry was invented with the connivance of the marriage broker and it has no basis at all, is the further submission of the counsel. Adverting to the notice sent through advocate by the father of the bride, it is contended that the allegations imputed

¶36

Crl.M.C. NO. 3116 of 2012

¶37

¶38

thereunder are bereft of any truth. This court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code cannot be called upon to examine the correctness of the allegations imputed in an advocate notice nor over the materials gathered by the investigating agency in a crime to test the sustainability of a report indicting a person of an offence. That section of the Code is primarily intended for passing of orders by this court to give effect to the orders under the Code or to prevent abuse of process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice. Where a final report has been filed by the police in a crime after investigation, assertion made by the person proceeded against to assail the indictment levelled banking upon one or other documents connected with the crime would not be sufficient to hold that the prosecution proceeded against him amounts to an abuse of process of the court. Whatever defences available to the person proceeded against, no doubt, can be canvassed by him before the magistrate in the case. I find this is not a fit case

¶39

Crl.M.C. NO. 3116 of 2012

¶40

¶41

warranting invoking of the inherent powers of this court, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶42

Crl.M.C. is dismissed.

¶43

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE.

¶44

DMR /-

Paramu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paramu v. State of Kerala

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

Abdul Asif Vs Rashida

Ayyankutty Vs State of Kerala

Unnikrishnan Vs Sajini

Asharaf Backer Vs Central Bureau of Investigation/Acb

Rajesh K.T.K. Vs State of Kerala

Kunjukutty @ Devasia Devasia Vs State of Kerala