Dismissed

Muhammed Naseef v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Nov 2017Crl.MC/3283/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed bail petitions arising from a dowry case, holding that all alleged facts are disputed questions of fact requiring evidence at trial, without quashing the proceedings or finding discharge.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners' applications were dismissed; plea of discharge to be raised at the appropriate stage if not already raised.

Muhammed Naseef Vs State of Kerala — Dowry and Cruelty | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/11TH KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3283 of 2017 ()

¶6

(CRIME NO. 419/2017 OF VENJARAMOODU POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANDAPURAM)

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/1^st ACCUSED:

¶8

MUHAMMED NASEEF, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL RASHEED, SALSABEEL, KOCHALUMOODU, PANGODE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695603.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN SRI.K.NIRMALAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND ANOTHER:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VENJARAMOODOU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031.

¶12

2. RIJU SALAM,, SOUDA SADANAM, MAILAKKAL, NELLANADU, VENJARAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695607.

¶13

R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.A.PRAKASH R2,R ADDL.. 3 BY ADV. SRI.M.ZIYAD R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR E.C.BINEESH

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 1110-2017, ALONG WITH CRMC. 4741/2017, THE COURT ON 2/11/2017 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Crl.MC.No. 3283 of 2017 () ---------------------------

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------ANNEXURE A1- CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR NO.419/2017 OF VENAJARAMOODE POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2- TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE INVITATION LETTER. ANNEXURE A3- TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT.26/04/2017 OF SBT, PANGODE. ANNEXURE A4- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.28/03/2017. ANNEXURE A5- CERTIFIED COPY OF THE REPORT DT.28/03/2017. ANNEXURE A6- TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.05/04/2017. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS -----------------------

¶18

ANNEXURE R2(1): COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 15/12/2016 TRANSFERRING RS.5 lAKHS TO PETITIONER'S MOTHER.

¶19

ANNEXURE R2(2): COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 7/12/2016 OF TISSOT WATCH.

¶20

ANNEXURE R2(3): COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 8/12/2016 FOR REGISTRATION FEE OF NIKKAH TO VANAJRAMOOD MUSLIM HAMAATH.

¶21

ANNEXURE R2(4): COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR BOOKING SUHAS AUDITORIUM DATED 8/12/2016.

¶22

ANNEXURE R2 (5): COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 6/3/2017 FOR BOOKING HONDA JAZZ (p) CAR.

¶23

ANNEXURE R2(6): COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 2/3/2017 FOR BOOKING VOLKSWAGEN AMEO HL.

¶24

ANNEXURE R2 (7): COPY OF THE INVITATION CARD FOR THE NIKKAH OF SOYA SALAM AND MUHAMMED NASEEF.

¶25

ANNEXURE R2 (8): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 22/3/2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN BEFORE THE POLICE .

¶26

/TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE.

¶27

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶28

¶29

Crl.M.C.Nos.3283 & 4741 of 2017

¶30

¶31

Dated this the 2^nd day of November, 2017

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

These Crl.M.C.s arise from crime No.419/2017 of

¶34

Venjaramoodu police station for offences punishable under section 4 (i) of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 and section 406 IPC.

¶35

The first accused is the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.3283/2017 and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.4741/2017. The second respondent in both the cases is the defacto complainant who lodged Annexure A1 FIS. It was stated that, the first accused had agreed to marry the sister of the second respondent. The marriage was proposed to be held on 5/4/2017. First accused was offered 75 sovereigns of gold , two shop rooms, Rupees Ten Lakhs as cash, 15 cents of land and a car valued about Rs. 10 Lakhs. The second accused,who is the brother-in-law of the first accused, demanded a dowry of Rupees Five Lakhs towards marriage expenses and a car of more value. Pursuant to the demand, a sum of Rs. 5 Lakhs was transferred to the account of the 3^rd accused, who is the mother of the first accused. Subsequently, on 21/3/2017 the accused resiled from the marriage proposal,without any reason. Alleging that, this has resulted in considerable mental agony and that loss of Rs.

¶36

Crl.M.C.No.3283/2017

¶37

¶38

8 Lakhs was occasioned to the second respondent, complaint was laid. Crime was registered and the matter is pending.

¶39

The accused has preferred these Crl.M.Cs. contending that the case is frivolous, experimental and that the defacto complainant himself after resiling from the agreement to give his sister in marriage, has approached this court. . It was stated that, formal ceremony of fixing the marriage was held on 11/12/2016. 9.5 sovereigns of gold ornaments and dress worth Rupees 15,000/was gifted by the sister of the first accused to the bride. On that day, some misunderstanding occurred, which escalated into a quarrel. The second respondent withdrew from the matrimonial alliance. A sum of Rs. 5 Lakhs was transferred to the account of the 3^rd accused by the mother of the bride and thereafter a false complaint was laid on 15/12/2016. It was stated that, even though certain mediation attempts were done, it failed, due to the hard stand of the bride's mother. The 3^rd accused re-transferred the amount which was voluntarily credited to her account by the bride's mother. Receipt was produced as Annexure A3. Thereafter, the defacto complainant sent a complaint to the superior officer of the first accused to take appropriate action against him. It was contended that, it showed the attempt of the second respondent to tarnish the accused by any means. Hence, the petitioners sought to quash the proceeding on the ground that no offence is made out from the available materials.

¶40

¶41

Crl.M.C.No.3283/2017

¶42

Heard both sides and examined the records.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since the second respondent himself voluntarily withdrew from the alliance, no offence is made out. It was contended that, Annexure A3 and A4 re-inforces the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the proceedings were initiated only to blackmail the accused and to extract more money. Criminal case was initiated only as a retaliation. It was further contended that, Annexure A2 marriage invitation card was printed by the accused, which evidenced that they wanted to proceed with the matrimonial relationship and that the default was from the side of the second respondent. Evidently, this is a disputed question of fact, which has to be considered by the court below on the basis of evidence. It seems that, the defacto complainant has a case that they had also proceeded with the matrimonial arrangement.

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, facts alleged itself show that the second accused had offered dowry, which itself was an offence as contemplated under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel invited my attention to Section 2 of the Act to contend that dowry includes any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given by one party to the marriage to the other party. It was contended that under section 3 of the Act, giving or taking the dowry is made penal. Hence, the second respondent cannot escape from the criminal liability even

¶45

¶46

Crl.M.C.No.3283/2017

¶47

on the basis of the admitted facts.

¶48

I am not impressed by the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners herein since in the complaint itself, there are indications that 75 sovereigns, two shops rooms and other valuable items were not offered as dowry. On the other hand, the complaint itself states that the second accused had demanded dowry of Rs. 5 Lakhs and a car which was of more value. In the light of the fact that the very complaint itself says that certain valuable items were offered by the second respondent and the second accused in turn demanded dowry, it clearly shows that the defacto complainant has no case that the valuable consideration offered by the second respondent was not meant as dowry, in contradiction with the valuable consideration allegedly demanded by the second accused. Hence, this contention may not survive, at present .

¶49

It was further contended that even from the admitted facts, at the most, it can be said that the second accused alone can be fastened with the criminal liability. However, it is pertinent to note that the second accused allegedly demanded dowry on behalf of the first accused and the money was received through the bank account of the third accused. All the accused are sought to be roped in with the aid of section 34 IPC. In the above circumstances, the contention of the petitioners herein that from the admitted facts, the criminal liability, at the most, can be

¶50

Crl.M.C.No.3283/2017

¶51

¶52

fastened on the second respondent alone cannot be accepted at this stage.

¶53

As mentioned above, all the facts alleged are disputed questions of facts, which will have to be evaluated at the time of evidence. Accordingly, Crl.M.C.s are dismissed. However, this will not preclude the petitioners herein from raising the plea of discharge at the appropriate stage, if it has not reached.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

SUNIL THOMAS Judge

¶56

dpk

¶57

/true copy/ PS to Judge.

Muhammed Naseef v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Naseef 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

Sherly Baby Vs State of Kerala

Geetha Vs State of Kerala

S.Abdullakunhi Vs State of Kerala

Sujitha .U Vs State of Kerala

Shameer Vs the State of Kerala

Jasim Jamal Vs State of Kerala