Quashed

Gopika P.B., v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Sept 2020Crl.MC/2679/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, acknowledging that the First Information Statement against an unmarried sister-in-law contained no serious allegations of cruelty or dowry demands specifically directed at her, quashed criminal proceedings against her under Section 498A IPC as an abuse of the court process, while allowing proceedings against her husband and mother-in-law to continue.

What did the court decide?

The impugned crime No. 1116/2019 and all consequential proceedings as against the petitioner (Accused No.3) are quashed and set aside.

Gopika P.B., Vs the State of Kerala — Domestic Violence | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 24TH BHADRA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.2679 OF 2020(D)

¶6

CRIME NO.1116/2019 OF Kodumon Police Station , Pathanamthitta

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

GOPIKA P.B., AGED 23 YEARS D/O. BALACHANDRAN, PUTHUVELPUTHEN VEEDU, MALAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN SMT.SHAILA RANI S.B.

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031

¶12

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KODUMON POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRIICT-691 555

¶13

3 DIVYA RAJ, D/O. BABURAJ, AGED 24 YEARS, CHANDRIKA NIVAS, ANGADIKKAL NORTH P.O, ANGADIKKAL, KODUMON, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-691 555

¶14

R3 BY ADV. NOBEL RAJU

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SRI.B.JAYASURYA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Crl.MC.No.2679 OF 2020(D)

¶19

¶20

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶21

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C. No.2679 of 2020

¶22

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15^th day of September, 2020

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The prayer in the above Crl.M.C. filed under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. is

¶25

as follows :

¶26

“xxx xxx may be pleased to call for the records relating to FIR in Crime No.1116/2019 of Kodumon Police Station, Pathanamthitta District and quash the FIR against the petitioner, in the interest of justice.”

¶27

Heard Sri.Latheesh Sebastian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (A3), Sri.B.Jayasurya, learned Prosecutor appearing for R1 and R2 and Sri.Nobel Raju, learned counsel appearing for R3 (lady defacto complainant).

¶28

The petitioner herein has been arrayed as accused No.3 among the 3 accused in the impugned Annexure-A1 FIR in Crime No.1116/2019 of Kodumon Police Station, Pathanamthitta District for offences punishable under Secs.498, 323 r/w Sec.34 of the IPC on the basis of the First Information Statement furnished by the 2^nd respondent-lady defacto complainant on 6.10.2019 in respect of the alleged incidents which happened for the period from 1.7.2019 to 9.9.2019.

¶29

A1 in this case is the husband of the 2^nd respondent/lady defacto

¶30

Crl.MC.No.2679 OF 2020(D)

¶31

¶32

complainant and A2 is the mother of A1 (mother-in-law of R3). The petitioner herein (A3), aged 23 years is the sister of A1.

¶33

The brief of the prosecution case in the impugned Annexure-I Crime is that after the marriage of A1 with the 3^rd respondent, the latter has been living with her husband (A1) in his parental home, in which A2 and A3 are also residing. The complaint of the 3^rd respondent is that she has been subjected to harassment and cruelty by the abovesaid accused persons and that the accused persons, more particularly, A2 had demanded additional dowry and gold ornaments and that the majority of the gold ornaments received by R3 at the time of marriage is with A2 and that the major portion of the money is entrusted to R3 by her father is also with A2 and then thereby the accused persons have committed the abovesaid offences.

¶34

The case of the petitioner herein (A3) is that there are no serious allegations disclosed against A3 in the admitted allegations of the prosecution as borne out from Annexure-I FIS and that the petitioner (A3) is an unmarried woman aged 23 years old and that she has been brought in only because she happens to be the sister of R3's husband and that she is now, suffering the ignominy of having to face the impugned criminal proceedings, with the result that her job members have diminished and that even one of the marriage proposals in her favour was also cancelled proposed by grooms’ family on account of the fact that the petitioner has

¶35

Crl.MC.No.2679 OF 2020(D)

¶36

¶37

been arrayed as accused No.3 in the instant crime.

¶38

It is thus urged by Sri. Latheesh S Sebastian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that no serious allegations are disclosed against the petitioner (A3) going by the admitted allegations in AnnexureFIS and that the impugned criminal proceedings will be quashed in the interest of justice by resort of the extraordinary powers conferred under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C.

¶39

Per contra, Sri.B.Jayasurya, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for R1 and R2 and Sri.Nobel Raju, learned counsel appearing for R3 would submit that the prayers of the petitioner may not be granted and that the matter is only at the investigation stage and that it cannot be said that no prosecution would lie as against the petitioner going by the allegations in Annxure-A1 and this Court may direct the completion of the investigation, without any further delay.

¶40

After hearing both sides, it is seen that Annexure-A FIR has been registered on the basis of the First Information Statement given by the 3^rd respondent on 6.10.2019 and the FIS has been appended to internal pages 4 to 7 of Annexure-A FIR. A reading of Annexure-A1 FIS would make it clear that the 3^rd respondent is aged 24 years and that she has been working as an accountant in a Company and that she has married A1 on

¶41

21.3.2019 and that A1 has been working abroad and after the marriage, the spouses stayed together in the matrimonial home only for about 21

¶42

Crl.MC.No.2679 OF 2020(D) 5

¶43

days and thereafter, he has left to the Gulf countries for resuming his employment and that later, she has resided in the residence of her husband for about 4 months. There is an allegation raised in page No.1 of Annexure-A1 FIS that later, A1 (husband), A2 (mother-in-law) and A3 (petitioner) has inflicted cruelty on the 3^rd respondent by demanding dowry and it is for this purpose that she has come to the Police Station for giving the First Information Statement.

¶44

Further that, at the time of her marriage, she was given about 70 sovereigns of gold ornaments by her parents as marriage gift and money coming to about 10 lakhs and that out of the same, an amount of Rs.2,30,000/- has been transferred in the account of A2 (mother in law) and the balance amount has also been entrusted to the parents of A1. Further that, out of the total gold ornaments received by her, about 56 sovereigns have been entrusted to the husband's family members, that at the time, the marriage proposals for the petitioner (A3) were being considered and it is from this time onwards that the husband's family members have demanded more dowry and gold from R3. That on 2.8.2019, at about 8 p.m. when she was in her bedroom, the parents of A1 had come to her room and A2 demanded that R3 should go to her parental home and collect more money and gold and that the marriage of A3 is to be conducted and that A2 had pushed the 3^rd respondent by her neck and thus hurt her. At that time, R3 had immediately telephonically informed about the said

¶45

Crl.MC.No.2679 OF 2020(D)

¶46

¶47

incident to her father. On coming knew of that, A2 again came to her room and demanded that R3 should go out of their house. Later, on 3.9.2019, R3’s parents had come to her matrimonial home and they had asked as to why R3 is being ill-treated and harassed and then it was informed that more gold and money should be given. Certain other incidents are also narrated therein. Later, that on 9.9.2019 at about 10.30 a.m., when R3 was in her parental home, A2 and the petitioner (A3) had come there and at that time, A2 had abused and assaulted R3. At that time, R3’s parents were not there in the house. Further, A2 had again pushed R3 by her neck and demanded that the thali chain given to R3 at the time of her marriage should be returned back and A2 yelled at her that R3 will not be permitted to live with her husband.

¶48

From the perusal of the contents of Annexure-A1 FIS, it can be seen that though serious allegations are not disclosed as against the petitioner herein (A3). Of course there is an allegation in the middle portion of Annexure-A1 as an introductory statement that R3 had come to the police station for the purpose of narrating the cruelty and harassment meted out to her by all the three accused persons, including the petitioner. The other significant allegations raised against the petitioner (A3) is that on 9.9.2019, when R3 was in her parental home, A2 was accompanied by the petitioner (A3) and the alleged incidents had taken place there. Apart from the allegation that A3 had accompanied A2 on 9.9.2019 at the

¶49

Crl.MC.No.2679 OF 2020(D)

¶50

¶51

parental home of R3, the entire allegations are directed exclusively as against A2 (mother-in-law). Apart from the allegation that A3 was present there, no overtacts or even uttering of abusive words etc. are in any manner attributed to A3. The petitioner (A3) is 23 year old unmarried lady and though she is an Engineering Graduate (B.tech Degree holder), as evident from Annexure-A2, her job prospects are also diminished on account of the pendency of the crime and further that, the marriage proposal was suited in her favour and even the marriage date was scheduled and the auditorium for the reception was also booked and subsequently, due to the pendency of the abovesaid Annexure-A1 crime, in which she has been arrayed as accused No.3, the proposed bride-groom’s party had canceled the marriage arrangement etc. Sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows :

¶52

“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”

¶53

The explanation appended as per Sec.498A of the IPC defines

¶54

the cruelty for the purpose of that section as (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to

¶55

Crl.MC.No.2679 OF 2020(D)

¶56

¶57

cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, (whether mental or physical) of the women or (b) harassment of the women, where such harassment is of the view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such a demand.

¶58

Going by the admitted allegations borne out from Annexure-A1 FIS, it can be seen that no allegations are made as against the petitioner (A3), which would amount to a willful conduct on her part so as to which is likely to drive the defacto complainant to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health etc. as envisaged in Clause (a) of the explanation of Sec . 498A. So also there cannot be any doubt that the allegations in Annexure-A1 FIS will not discloses any serious case of harassment meted out by the petitioner (A3) on the defacto complainant with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security as envisaged therein.

¶59

Since no serious allegations are disclosed as against the petitioner (A3) in Annexure-A1 crime, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the impugned criminal proceedings to the limited extent it is directed as against the petitioner herein (A3) is an abuse of the process of court, which would require interdiction at the hands of the Court

¶60

Crl.MC.No.2679 OF 2020(D)

¶61

¶62

by exercise of the powers under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the impugned Annexure-A1 crime No. 1116/2019 of Kodumon Police Station to the limited extent it is directed as against the petitioner herein (A3), as accused No.3 therein and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom will stand quashed and set aside. However, it is made clear that the further proceedings in pursuance of the impugned Annexure-A1 crime as against A1 and A2 may proceed strictly in accordance with law. It is further made clear that the impugned criminal proceedings to the extent it is directed as against A1 and A2 may proceed as per law, untrammeled and uninfluenced in any manner by the observations and orders made by this Court in this petition as the same is only in relation to the involvement of the petitioner herein (accused No.3 therein).

¶63

The petitioner will produce certified copy of this order before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor as well as before the investigating officer concerned for necessary information.

¶64

With these observations and directions, the above Criminal Miscellaneous case will stand finally disposed of.

¶65

Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

¶66

Crl.MC.No.2679 OF 2020(D)

¶67

¶68

APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 2679/2020

¶69

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶70

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 1116/2019 KODUMON POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED FROM APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY DATED 17.08.2019. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE PAPPANAMCODE SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK DATED 01.08.2019.

Gopika P.B., v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopika P.B., v. the 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

Sanjai Lal, Vs State of Kerala

Thomsun Realtors Private Limited., Vs the District Geologist

Joy Joseph, Vs State of Kerala

Sajith Chandrababu, Vs Drishya Dileep

Raveendran Nair Vs the State of Kerala

Siby Thomas, Vs State of Kerala