Partly allowed

Byju Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Dec 2022Crl.MC/975/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a Criminal Miscellaneous case filed by four accused to quash proceedings for six alleged offenders under Sections 498A and 406 IPC. The court ordered quashing of proceedings against petitioners 3 and 4 due to lack of specific allegations, citing Supreme Court precedents against implicating relatives without proof of involvement.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of all further proceedings against petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 in C.C.No.743/2021; personal appearance of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 dispensed with but they shall appear as directed.

Byju Kumar Vs State of Kerala — Dowry and Cruelty | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA,

¶5

1944

¶6

CRL.MC NO. 975 OF 2022

¶7

CRIME NO.192/2021 OF Peringome Police Station, Kannur CC NO.743/2021 OF JFCM, PAYYANNUR

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCISED NOS. 1 TO 4:

¶9

1 BYJU KUMAR, AGED 41 YEARS, ACHUTHAM MAMBA, MUZHAPPALA, P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. KANNUR, PIN - 670611

¶10

2 MAIDHILI V V, AGE 68, ACHUTHAM MAMBA,MUZHAPPALA,. P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT PIN -670 611

¶11

3 SHIJINA V V, AGED 39, W/O BIJOY, BALAVIHAR KAKKUNNAM,TRIKARIPUR, KANNUR DISTRICT PIN -670 611

¶12

4 SHYJU V V, AGED 43, S/O ACHUTHAM MAMBA, MUZHAPPALA,. P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT PIN -670 611

¶13

BY ADV S.S.ARAVIND SRI. M.V. AMARESAN

¶14

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶15

1 STATE OF KERALA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031

¶16

2 SHANA C, AGED 31, S/O NARAYANAN NAMBIDITHIDIL HOUSE, THATTERI, MATHAMANGALAM, KANUUR DISTRICT PIN 670 306

¶17

BY ADV O V MANIPRASAD O V SRI. C.N. PRABHAKARAN, SR. PP

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.M.C.No.975/2022

-:2:-

O R D E R

Dated this the 1^st day of December, 2022

¶23

This Crl.M.C has been filed to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.743/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur (for short 'the court below').

¶24

The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 to 4. The 2^nd respondent is the defacto complainant. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 498A, 406 read with 34 of IPC.

¶25

The 1^st petitioner is the husband of the 2^nd respondent. The 2^nd petitioner is the mother of the 1^st petitioner and the 3^rd and 4^th petitioners are the siblings of the 1^st petitioner.

¶26

The prosecution case in short is that, the 2^nd

¶27

respondent was subjected to cruelty by the petitioners, both physically and mentally, demanding more dowry and further, the petitioners misappropriated the gold ornaments belonging to the 2^nd respondent.

¶28

I have heard Sri. M.V. Amaresan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. O.V. Maniprasad, the learned counsel for

¶29

the 2^nd respondent and Sri. C.N. Prabhakaran, the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶30

Crl.M.C.No.975/2022

¶31

-:3:-

¶32

I went through the FIS as well as the connected

¶33

records. There are prima facie allegations to attract the alleged offences against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. However, there are no specific allegations against the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4.

¶34

The Apex Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498A of IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes and warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them. (See Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar (AIR 2022 SC 820) and K.Subba Rao v. State of Telangana [(2018) 14 SCC 452]. In K. Subba Rao (Supra), the Apex Court held that the court should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. It was further held that the relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out. In Kahkashan Kausar (supra), it was held that in the absence of any specific role attributed to the in-laws, it would be unjust if they are forced to

¶35

go through the tribulations of trial. It was further held that the

¶36

Crl.M.C.No.975/2022

¶37

-:4:-

¶38

allegations that are general and omnibus do not warrant prosecution under Section 498A of IPC.

¶39

As stated already, there are no specific allegations, much less any allegation at all against the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 so as to attract the ingredients of Sections 498A, 406 read with 34 of IPC. Hence, no purpose will be served in proceeding further against the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4. Accordingly, all further proceedings against the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 alone in C.C.No.743/2021 on the file of the court below are hereby quashed. The personal appearance of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 at the court below is dispensed with. However, they shall appear at the court below as and when directed.

¶40

The Crl.M.C is allowed in part as above.

¶41

sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE

Crl.M.C.No.975/2022

-:5:-

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 975/2022

¶46

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶47

Annexure1 TRUE COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO PERINGOME POLICE ON 15.07.2021. Annexure 1(a) TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO192/2021 OF PERINGOME POLICE REGISTERED BASED ON ANNEXURE-1 Annexure2 TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16-8-2021 UNDER SECTION 161 OF CR.P.C. Annexure-3 CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 192/2021 REGISTERED BY PERINGOME POLICE.

Byju Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Byju Kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shine P.Jacob Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Shebeeb @ Shebeeb Vs State of Kerala

Rajik Vs the State of Kerala

Joseph Vs Selvory

Santhosh Kumar K.O Vs State of Kerala

Mini.P.S. Vs the Director General of Police