Partly allowed

Subadra v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Apr 2019Crl.MC/769/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal Misc. Case seeking quashment of proceedings under Section 498A IPC, the High Court of Kerala quashed charges against the second petitioner (sister-in-law) due to vague allegations, while rejecting the prayer to quash proceedings against the first petitioner (mother-in-law) as there were sufficient specific averments against her. The court found continuing the trial against the second

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against the second petitioner (petitioner No. 2) in C.C.No.2618/2013 are quashed; prayer quashing proceedings against the first petitioner is rejected.

Subadra Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 769 of 2014

¶6

IN THE MATTER OF CC 2618/2013 JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

¶7

-II,PALAKKAD

¶8

CRIME NO. 571/2013 OF Kongad Police Station, Palakkad

¶9

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 AND 3:

¶10

1 SUBADRA AMMA, W/O LATE RAGHAVAN NAIR, KEERANGATT HOUSE, KOOTUPATHA, NOW RESIDING AT POLLEKKAT HOUSE, MUNDOOR P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT

¶11

2 SUGUNA D/O LATE RAGHAVAN NAIR, POOLLEKKAT HOUSE, MUNDUR, NOW RESIDING AT HOUSE NO 18/1 GOKULAM, L.T.O COLONY, SIDCO (POST), COIMBATORE 21

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD)

¶13

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT

¶14

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶15

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682031

¶16

2 DEEPA, AGED 34 YEARS, W/O VIJAYARAGHAVAN, 'KRISHNA KRIPA', SREE SREE NAGAR, VENOLI ROAD, KALLEPPULLY POST, PALAKKAD 680007

¶17

BY ADVS. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR SMT.V.SHYLAJA SMT.K.K.SHEEBA PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.04.2019, THE COURT ON 09.04.2019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Crl.M.C.No.769/2014

¶20

¶21

R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J

¶22

************************ Crl.M.C.No.769 of 2014

¶23

Dated this the 9^th day of April, 2019

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The petitioners are the second and the third accused in

¶26

the case C.C.No.2618/2013 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Palakkad. The petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') to quash the proceedings against them in the aforesaid case.

¶27

The first petitioner is the mother-in-law and the second petitioner is the sister-in-law of the second respondent. The husband of the second respondent is the first accused in the case C.C.No.2618/2013. The case against the petitioners was registered as Crime No.571/2013 of Kongad police station on the basis of the complaint filed

¶28

by the second respondent in the Magistrate's Court

¶29

Crl.M.C.No.769/2014

¶30

¶31

concerned, which was forwarded to police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code. After completing the investigation in the case, the police filed chargesheet against the petitioners and the husband of the second respondent for the offence punishable under Section 498A read with 34 I.P.C.

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the

¶33

learned Public Prosecutor and also the learned counsel for the second respondent.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there are no averments in the complaint filed by the second respondent to implicate the petitioners for an offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. On the other hand, learned counsel for the second respondent would contend that the petitioners and the husband of the second respondent had together mentally and physically harassed the second respondent in connection with the demand made by them for money. Learned counsel would submit that the

¶35

averments in the complaint filed by the second respondent

¶36

Crl.M.C.No.769/2014

¶37

¶38

constitute an offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C against the petitioners.

¶39

The averments in the complaint filed by the second respondent (who is referred to as 'the complainant' in this paragraph) against her husband and the petitioners are as follows: The marriage between the complainant and the first accused was on 21.04.2002. Thereafter, they lived together in the house of the first accused. The complainant had fifty sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of the marriage. But, the accused showed hatred towards her for the reason that there was no money given as dowry. The complainant had to suffer the mental and physical harassment inflicted on her by the accused in relation to their demand for dowry. When the second accused came to know that the complainant was pregnant, she got angry and locked up the complainant in the bathroom. After delivery, when the complainant and the child were brought to the house of the accused, the first and the second accused

¶40

obtained an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the father of the

¶41

Crl.M.C.No.769/2014

¶42

¶43

complainant. When the complainant again got pregnant, the first and the second accused approached doctors to terminate the pregnancy but no one was ready to do so. After delivery of the second child, when the complainant and the child were brought to the house of the accused, the accused demanded Rs.1,50,000/- but the father of the complainant could give them only an amount of Rs.50,000/-. The accused mentally and physically harassed the complainant saying that atleast an amount of Rs.1,00,000/shall be given. The first and the second accused took the gold ornaments of the complainant and they were utilised by the first accused. The first and the second accused tortured the complainant demanding money. The third accused, along with the other accused, ousted the complainant and the children from the house .

¶44

On a careful scrutiny of the averments in the complaint, it can be found that there are sufficient averments against the first petitioner, who is the second accused, which spell out the ingredients of an offence

¶45

Crl.M.C.No.769/2014

¶46

¶47

punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. There is a specific allegation against the first petitioner that she locked up the second respondent in the bathroom. There are specific allegations against the first petitioner that she had harassed the second respondent with a view to coerce her to meet the demand for money. Whether such allegations are true or not cannot be considered in a petition under Section 482 of the Code. Suffice it to hold that there is no sufficient ground to quash the proceedings against the first petitioner.

¶48

The second petitioner is the sister of the husband of the second respondent. There is no specific allegation against her in the complaint that she subjected the second respondent to cruelty. There is no allegation against the second petitioner that she committed any act which was likely to drive the second respondent to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health. There is no specific allegation against the second petitioner that she had harassed the second respondent with a view to coerce the second respondent or any of her relatives to meet

¶49

Crl.M.C.No.769/2014

¶50

¶51

any unlawful demand for money or other property. The allegations against the second petitioner are vague and general in nature. The only specific allegation against the second petitioner is that she, along with the other accused in the case, ousted the second respondent from the house. The date and particulars of such incident are not mentioned in the complaint. There is no specific allegation against the second petitioner that she committed any specific act with a view to oust the second respondent from the house. In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the complaint filed by the second respondent, which formed the basis for initiating the proceedings against the second petitioner, does not contain sufficient averments constituting the ingredients of an offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C against her.

¶52

No active involvement of the second petitioner in the matrimonial dispute between the second respondent and her husband is alleged. On the basis of general and vague allegations raised against her, the second petitioner cannot

¶53

Crl.M.C.No.769/2014

¶54

¶55

be ordered to undergo the ordeal of a trial. Continuing the proceedings against the second petitioner would be an abuse

¶56

of process of the court and therefore, the proceedings against her are liable to be quashed.

¶57

Consequently, the petition is allowed in part. The prayer for quashing the proceedings against the first petitioner is rejected. The proceedings against the second petitioner in C.C.No.2618/2013 on the file of the Court of

¶58

the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Palakkad, based on Annexure 5 charge sheet, are quashed. It is made clear that the proceedings against the second petitioner alone stand terminated.

¶59

(sd/-)

¶60

R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE

jsr

Crl.M.C.No.769/2014

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶66

ANNEXURE P1 ANNEXURE 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT AND FIR IN KONGAD POLICE STATION CRIME NO 571/2013

¶67

ANNEXURE P2 ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE AGENT'S CARD ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER BY THE SBI LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

¶68

ANNEXURE P3 ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER BYU THE UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION AUTHORITY OF INDIA

¶69

ANNEXURE P4 ANNEXURE 4 TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA,

¶70

ANNEXURE P5 ANNEXURE 5 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 25-08-2013 FILED IN KONGAD POLICE CIRME NO 571/13 WHICH IS TAKEN AS FILE AS CC 2618/13 BY JFMC II

¶71

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶72

NIL

¶73

PS TO JUDGE

Subadra v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subadra 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

Bindya Mohan Vs State of Kerala

P.K.Gopalan Vs State of Kerala

M.R. Somarajan Vs State of Kerala

The Divisional Chief Executive Vs State of Kerala

The Divisional Chief Executive, Tobacco Division Vs State of Kerala

Akhil Krishnan Vs the State of Kerala