Quashed

Padmaja v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Sept 2020Crl.MC/3332/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, in a criminal miscellaneous case, quashed the final report and criminal proceedings against two appellants (mother and sister of the accused) under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court held that the allegations of cruelty under Section 498A IPC were weak, general, and did not justify the continuation of proceedings, deeming them an abuse of the court's process. Proceedings again

What did the court decide?

Impugned final report/charge sheet and all further proceedings against petitioners A2 and A3 are quashed and set aside.

Padmaja Vs State of Kerala — Dowry and Cruelty | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 31ST BHADRA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.3332 OF 2020(F)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1117/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III,PALAKKAD

¶7

CRIME NO.278/2019 OF Hemambika Nagar Police Station , Palakkad

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 AND 3:

¶9

1 PADMAJA

¶10

AGED 50 YEARS W/O.SREEDHARAN, RAMANILAYAM, SASTHANAGAR, KANJIKODE WEST, PALAKKAD, KERALA, PIN - 678 623.

¶11

2 PREETHI

¶12

AGED 29 YEARS D/O.SREEDHARAN, RAMANILAYAM, SASTHANAGAR, KANJIKODE WEST, PALAKKAD, KERALA - 678 623.

¶13

BY ADVS.

¶14

SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR SMT.V.SHYLAJA

¶15

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶16

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶17

REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶18

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE HEMAMBIKA NAGAR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD, PIN- 678001.

¶19

3 GAYATHRI MENON AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.RAVEENDRANATH, TEJAS, NEAR HEMAMBIKA TEMPLE, KALLEKULANGARA, PALAKKAD – 678009.

¶20

Crl.MC.No.3332 OF 2020(F)

¶21

¶22

BY ADV.

¶23

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

Crl.MC.No.3332 OF 2020(F)

¶26

¶27

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶28

Crl.M.C. No.3332 of 2020

¶29

Dated this the 22^nd day of September, 2020

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The prayers in the above Crl.Miscellaneous Case filed under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C are as follows:

¶32

“A] Quash Annexure D final report in CC 1117/19 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court III, Palakkad in the interest of justice

¶33

B]. Grant such other relieved which just and necessary in the interest of justice. ”

¶34

2. Heard Sri.A.T.Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for

¶35

the petitioners (A2 and A3) and and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for R1 and R2. Though registered notice by speed post has been duly taken to contestant respondent No.3 in the address as shown by her in Annexure A and B – FIR / FIS and in her Section 161 Cr.P.C statement given to the Police, the postal authorities have endorsed that she has left India.

¶36

The two petitioners herein have been arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3 among the three accused in the instant impugned Annexure B-FIR in Crime No.278 of 2019 of Palakkad Hemambika Nagar Police Station for the offences under Sections 406 and 498A of

¶37

¶38

Crl.MC.No.3332 OF 2020(F)

¶39

the Indian Penal Code on the basis of Annexure A-FIS filed by R2 furnished by the 3 rd respondent-de facto complainant on 18.07.2019 in respect of the alleged incident which happened from period of 02.02.2017 onwards. The Police after investigation have filed the impugned Annexure D-Final Report / charge sheet for the above offences and the case is now pending as calendar case CC No.1117 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Palakkad. Accused No.1 in the above case is the husband of the 3^rd respondent lady de facto complainant Petitioners herein-A2 and A3 are the mother and sister respectively of A1. The case of t he 3 rd respondent lady de facto co mplainant in Annexure A-FIS is to the effect that after the marriage of the above said spouses, the 3^rd respondent has been residing in her marital home, wherein husband(A1), as well as the two petitioners (A2 & A3) herein are residing and that they have treated her with cruelty and harassment etc, and that they have committed the abovesaid offences etc.

¶40

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents it is seen that there are no serious or grave allegations raised against the petitioners herein in Annexure A-FIS or even in Annexure C further statement given by

¶41

Crl.MC.No.3332 OF 2020(F)

¶42

¶43

the 3^rd respondent under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. A reading of the impugned criminal proceedings would show that there is an allegation in internal page No.2 of Annexure A FIS that the 1^st petitioner (A2) had told the 3^rd respondent after marriage that A1 can keep the gold ornaments of the 3^rd respondent in a bank locker and need not be kept in the residence and that saying so she had received about 35 sovereigns of the gold ornaments from the 3^rd respondent for being kept in the bank locker. Apart from that there are no allegations in Annexure A as to whether later A1 has not returned back the same to the 3^rd respondent despite request or that A1 has later misappropriated it etc. Of course there is an allegation in Annexure C-further statement that 3^rd respondent does not know whether the accused have later misappropriated the said gold ornaments etc. and that she has initiated separate proceedings before the Family Court, in that regard. Apart from the other offences in Annexure A-FIS are rather very week and generalised. There is an allegation in the latter portion of page 2 of Annexure A that A1, A2 and A3 have treated the 3^rd respondent with physical and mental cruelty. There is yet another allegation in internal page 3 of Annexure A that the petitioners herein A2 and A3 have told R3 that A1 deserves to get a more beautiful wife and that R3 may divorce A1 and remarry if she wants. Of course, there is an allegation

¶44

Crl.MC.No.3332 OF 2020(F)

¶45

¶46

that the accused was used to tell her that the amount of Rs.2,30,000/-

¶47

given to her by her father is not sufficient and that she should bring to him more money and gold ornaments etc. Apart from the same there are no serious allegations in Annexure A or Annexure C as to the exact nature of the overt acts done by the petitioner herein (A2 and A3), which would fulfill the definition of physical and mental cruelty as envisaged under Section 498A of the IPC. Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows:

¶48

“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.

¶49

Explanation .- For the purpose of this section “cruelty” means-

¶50

(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

¶51

(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.”

¶52

Clause(a) of explanation appended to Section 498A of IPC would

¶53

make it clear that the cruelty makes a willful conduct of such a nature is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the

¶54

Crl.MC.No.3332 OF 2020(F)

¶55

¶56

woman. Further clause (b) of the explanation makes it clear that 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. From an overall reading of the impugned proceedings it can be seen that the allegations are raised by R2 as against A2 and A3 are not serious or grave so as to justify continuation of the impugned criminal proceedings of the said offence. The aforesaid allegations in the abovesaid impugned proceedings is said to be a willful conduct on the part of A2 and A3 which is likely to drive the de facto complainant to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. Apart from making the allegations that A2 and A3 had also demanded for extra payment dowry and to bring more gold etc., the precise nature of the alleged mental and physical cruelty said to have been done by them so as to coerce the 3^rd respondent to meet an unlawful demand is not seriously made out in the impugned proceedings. Hence this Court is constrained to take the view that continuation of impugned criminal proceedings initiate d as against A2 and A3 is a n abuse of process of court and deserves interdiction in exercise of powers conferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶57

Crl.MC.No.3332 OF 2020(F)

¶58

¶59

Accordingly, it is ordered that impugned Annexure D final report / charge sheet filed in Annexure B Crime 278 of 2019 of Palakkad Hemambika Nagar Police Station which has now led to the pendency of Calendar Case CC No.1117 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-III, Palakkad, as against the petitioners herein-A2 and A3 and all further proceeding s emanating theref rom as against A2 and A3 herein will stand quashed and set aside. It is made clear that, the proceedings as against A1 may go on, strictly in accordance with law. It is further ordered that the impugned proceedings as against A1 could be continued in accordance with law, untrammelled and uninfluenced in any manner by the observations and findings held by this Court in this order. The petitioners will produce certified copy of this order before the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-III, Palakkad, who is dealing with C.C.No.1117 of 2019 as well as the investigating officer concerned for necessary information.

¶60

With these observations and directions, the above Crl.M.C will stand disposed of.

¶61

Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

¶62

SCS

¶63

Crl.MC.No.3332 OF 2020(F)

¶64

¶65

APPENDIX

¶66

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶67

ANNEXURE A THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT OF DEFACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 18/07/2019.

¶68

ANNEXURE B THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.278/2019 DATED 18/07/2019.

¶69

ANNEXURE C THE TRUE COPY OF THE FURTHER STATEMENT OF 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 19/07/2019. ANNEXURE D THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CC 1117/2019 DATED 28/09/2019.

¶70

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Padmaja v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padmaja 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

Rmp Infotec Pvt.Ltd. Company, Vs State of Kerala

Mrs.Aswathi Vs State of Kerala

Xavier .K.J Vs State of Kerala

Anil Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Adarsh Alias Kannan Vs State of Kerala

Siril K.J. Vs Smt. M. Anjana