Allowed

M.V Abdul Latheef v. Haseena

Kerala HC1 Jul 2014Crl.MC/1628/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an under-section-482 CrPC petition filed by an accused in a Section 498A IPC case. The court quashed the final charge sheet, holding that the prosecution was a misuse of process as allegations were limited to desertion and maintenance without any claim of cruelty.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of Annexure A4 final report in Crime No.314/2012. Dismissal of all pending interlocutory applications.

M.V Abdul Latheef Vs Haseena — Caste Atrocities | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2014/10TH ASHADHA, 1936

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1628 of 2013 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 45/2013 of J.M.F.C-I,SULTHAN BATHERY

¶7

CRIME NO. 314/2012 OF AMBALAVAYAL POLICE STATION , WAYANAD.

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

------------------

¶10

M.V ABDUL LATHEEF, AGED 40 YEARS, MULAVEETTIL HOUSE, KOLLATHARA POST, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH.

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶13

-------------------------

¶14

1. HASEENA,, AGED 23 YEARS, D/O.HAMSA, KATTEKKADAN HOUSE, KADALMAD.P.O., THOMATTUCHAL VILLAGE, BATHERY TALUK,

¶15

WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶16

2. STATE OF KERALA THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, AMBALAVAYAL POLICE STATION, WAYANAD DISTRICT,

¶17

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 31.

¶18

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.BINDU GOPINATH.

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Crl.MC.No. 1628 of 2013 ()

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :

¶23

ANNEXURE A1 : TRUE COPY of the COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE IST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KALPETTA DATED 24-9-2012. ANNEXURE A2 : TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.780/12 OF KALPETTA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A3 : TRUE COPY of the FIR IN CRIME NO.314/2012 OF AMBALAVAYAL POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A4 : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL CHARGE SHEET FILED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, SULTHAN BATHERY IN CRIME NO.314/2012. ANNEXURE A5 : TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE IN CRIME NO.314/2012 OF THE AMBALAVAYAL POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A6 : TRUE COPY OF THE 161 STATEMENT OF THE WITNESSES IN THE CASE BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, SULTHAN BATHERY. ANNEXURE A7 : TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS ISSUED BY JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT – I, SULTHAN BATHERY.

¶24

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

amk

A.HARIPRASAD, J.

Crl.M.C No.1628 of 2013

¶30

Dated this the 1^st day of July, 2014.

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Petitioner is

¶33

the accused in C.C No.45/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Sulthan Bathery. Initially the Prosecution registered a case against the petitioner/accused alleging offences under Sections 376, 342 and 506(2) I.P.C. Later, when it was established that the petitioner/accused had married the defacto complainant, the offences of rape and wrongful confinement were deleted. Now, what is remaining is only an offence under Section 498A I.P.C.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶35

I have carefully gone through the materials in the records which show that the predominant allegation raised by the defacto complainant against the petitioner is that he has deserted her and failed to provide maintenance to her.

¶36

Crl.M.C No.1628 of 2013 2

¶37

Absolutely no allegation of physical or mental cruelty meted out to her is mentioned in the statements. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the prosecution is an abuse of

¶38

the process of the court. Going by the allegations raised by the defacto complainant, it can be seen at the most that she is entitled to seek relief for maintenance. However, the prosecution under Section 498A I.P.C is without any legal justification.

¶39

In the result, the petition is allowed. Annexure A4 final report in Crime No.314/2012 of Ambalavayal Police Station is hereby quashed.

¶40

All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.

¶41

Sd/A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.

¶42

amk

¶43

//True copy//

¶44

P.A to Judge

M.V Abdul Latheef v. Haseena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.V Abdul Latheef v. Haseena

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

T.Raju Vs State of Kerala and Another

T.R.Krishna Kumar Vs Anamika

Jayamohan Vs Fr. Dr. Abraham Thalothil

Dr.Vincent J Vs State of Kerala

Shymesh Vs State of Kerala

Leenamma Pious Vs State of Kerala