The High Court allowed the petitioner liberty to pursue remedies for further investigation into the role of the lover's parents regarding abetment to suicide. The court did not press the petition's prayer regarding separate trials at this stage.
Liberty granted to the petitioner to work out remedies in the manner known to law regarding effective investigation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 19TH KARTHIKA, 1942
Crl.MC.No.12 OF 2017
TO SET ASIDE/MODIFY THE ORDER DATED 22.02.2016 IN CRL.M.P.NO.57/2016 IN S.C.NO.32/2012 ON THE FILE OF ASSISTNAT SESSIONS COURT, VATAKARA
CRIME NO.475/2008 OF EDACHERRY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER/MOTHER OF THE VICTIM:
LEELA W/O.BALAN, AGED 42 YEARS,NEDUMBARATH, EDACHERY AMSOM, KACHERI.P.O., VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SRI.K.SIJU SMT.S.SEETHA
RESPONDENTS/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, EDACHERRY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
S/O.BALAN, AGED 31 YEARS, KUNIYIL HOUSE, KALLOTT THAZHEKUNI, THUNERI.P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673505
S/O.SANKARAN, KUNIYIL HOUSE, KALLOTT THAZHEKUNI,THUNERI.P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673505
4 VANAJA
W/O.BALAN, KUNIYIL HOUSE, KALLOTT THAZHEKUNI, THUNERI.P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673505
R2-R4 BY ADV. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL
SR GP SRI SAIGI JACOB PALATTY
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C No.12 of 2017
2
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
===========================
Crl.M.C No.12 of 2017
=========================== Dated this the 10th day of November, 2020
ORDER
The prayer in the aforecaptioned Crl.M.C filed under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C is as follows:
“To quash/modify Annexure 4 order and to direct the court below to conduct a simultaneous trial in SC 32/2012 and SC 198/2014 on the file of Assistant Sessions Court, Vatakara in the interest of justice.”
Crl.M.C No.12 of 2017
3
victim was made the sole accused. Further, the petitioner had given a statement under Sec.161 of the Cr.P.C before the Police authorities in the course of the investigation that, the parents of the lover of the deceased victim are seriously involved through their acts in this case relating to the abetment of suicide of the deceased victim. Further that, the police without any due care had initially filed a refer report on 15.10.2008 in this case stating that even the allegations as against the sole accused are also not disclosed. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner was advised to file Annexure-2 private criminal complaint on 16.12.2008 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Vatakara, alleging that the offence relating to abetment to commit suicide has been committed by the parents of the victim’s lover as well as the lover of the victim, in which the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance. Thereafter, it appears that the Investigating Agency has conducted a further investigation and has filed Annexure-3 final report/charge sheet in this case on 23.02.2013, in which also allegations were made only as against the lover of the victim by arraying him as the sole accused therein and that though sufficient materials are collected by the Investigating Agency to disclose that serious offences in that regard has also been committed by the parents of the lover (A2 & A3 in the private
Crl.M.C No.12 of 2017
4
criminal complaint), the police did not give due care to that. Now, the petitioner has challenged Annexure-4 order 22.02.2016 rendered by the Sessions Court, whereby it has been ordered at the instance of the accused that both the police charge sheeted case emanating out of Annexure-3 final report/charge sheet as well as Annexure-2 private criminal complaint should be tried together. The petitioner has challenged the said Annexure-4 order with the plea that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, joint trial should not have been ordered, but on the other hand, the court should have ordered for trial of both these cases separately but one after the other, so that the rights and interests of the accused persons as well as the prosecution in the police charge sheeted case as well as that of the private criminal complaint are duly protected.
Crl.M.C No.12 of 2017
5
the charges have not been framed by the said court or to file petition under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C seeking for orders and directions in the matter of conduct of an effective further investigation, so that the role and allegations of the parents of the deceased victim’s lover are also properly investigated and disclosed, etc. Further that, the petitioner is reserving liberty to challenge the impugned order herein (Annexure-4), at a subsequent stage, if that is really necessary and called for. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit on the basis of instructions of his party that the petitioner is not pressing the above main prayer in the present Crl.M.C and that she may be accorded liberty to pursue the abovesaid course of action and reserving the said liberty to challenge the impugned order herein, if necessary later. Liberty is accorded to the petitioner to work out her remedies, in the manner known to law
With the said liberty, the above Criminal Miscellaneous case will stand disposed of.
Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE
vgd
Crl.M.C No.12 of 2017
6
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.475/2008 OF EDACHERRY POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE 2 THE COPY OF PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JFMC, VATAKARA AS CMP 5988/2008. ANNEXURE 3 THE COPY OF FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN CRIME 475/2008 OF EDACHERRY POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE 4 CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DT. 22.2.2016 IN CRL.M.P.NO.57/2016 IN S.C.NO.32/2012.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to pursue remedies regarding investigation of the deceased's lover's parents.
Whether the challenge to the joint trial order needs to be pressed at this stage or reserved for a later stage.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
LEELA W/O.BALAN
STATE OF KERALA
JEEVESH
BALAN
VANAJA
ALEXANDER THOMAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
