Allowed

Sandra Maria v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Jan 2023Crl.MC/3473/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous case filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court at Ernakulam quashed further proceedings against the petitioner. The court held that no offence was attracted against her as the FIR and other statements did not allege any overt act by her. The order was allowed.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings in C.C.No.4342/2016 against the petitioner in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thrissur are quashed.

Sandra Maria Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 22ND POUSHA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 3473 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 4342/2016 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:

¶8

SANDRA MARIA AGED 23 YEARS, D/O.STANLY, KOMBARAKKARA HOUSE, MUKATTUKARA DESOM, THRISSUR – 680516.

¶9

BY ADVS. P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.) SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN SRI.P.M.RAFIQ SRI.V.C.SARATH SRI.AJEESH K.SASI SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN SMT.POOJA PANKAJ SRUTHY N. BHAT SHRI.ABEL TOM BENNY

¶10

RESPONDENTS/ STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031. 2 MARY JOSPHINE AGED 71 YEARS, W/O.PAUL ALEXANDER, VENDHURUTHY HOUSE, MUKATTUKARA DESOM, OLLUKKARA, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR. BY ADV SRI.MAHESH V.MENON

¶12

SANGEETHA RAJ PP

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Crl.M.C.No. 3473/2020

¶15

..2..

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Dated this the 12^th day of January, 2023

¶18

This Crl.M.C. has been filed to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.4342/2016 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thrissur (for short, 'the court below') against the petitioner.

¶19

The petitioner is the 3^rd accused. The accused

¶20

Nos. 1 and 2 are the parents of the petitioner. The 2^nd respondent is the defacto complainant, who is the neighbour of the petitioner and her parents.

¶21

The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 448, 323, 341, 354, 506(ii) and 294(b) r/w 34 of IPC.

¶22

The prosecution case in short is that, on 23/10/2016 at about 3 pm, the petitioner along with the 1^st and 2^nd accused, trespassed into the house of the 2^nd respondent, assaulted her and her husband with the intention to outrage the modesty of the 2^nd respondent and further criminally intimidated her. It is further alleged that

¶23

..3..

¶24

Crl.M.C.No. 3473/2020

¶25

the accused Nos. 1 and 2 showered abusive words against the 2^nd respondent.

¶26

I have heard Smt.Nikita, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Mahesh V. Menon, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri.Sangeetha Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the entire allegations in the FIS together with the materials collected during investigation are believed in toto , no offence under Sections 448, 323, 341, 354, 506(ii) and 294(b) of the IPC are attracted against the petitioner. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent submitted that the allegations against the petitioner and her parents together would constitute the offences alleged with the aid of Section 34 of IPC and when prima facie case is made out, the jurisdiction vested with this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked.

¶28

I went through the FIS in detail. A reading of the FIS would show that, there was pre-existing dispute

¶29

..4..

¶30

Crl.M.C.No. 3473/2020

¶31

between the accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the 2^nd respondent and her husband. A reading of the FIS would show that the entire allegations are against the 1^st and 2^nd accused. The allegation in the FIS is that, on the date of incident, while the 2^nd respondent and her husband were taking rest at their house after the lunch, the petitioner and the accused Nos. 1 and 2 trespassed into the house and the 1^st and 2^nd accused assaulted the 2^nd respondent and the 1^st accused criminally intimidated the husband of the 2^nd respondent and the 2^nd accused assaulted on the face of the husband of the 2^nd respondent.

¶32

No overt act has been alleged against the present petitioner. Even the presence of the petitioner at the place of the incident is not so evident from the allegation in the FIS. What is stated is that the 1^st and 2^nd accused along with one of their children trespassed into their property. The name of the petitioner has not been mentioned. It is submitted that the 1^st and 2^nd accused have three children. In the statement of 2^nd respondent as well as in the statement of the son of the 2^nd respondent recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.

¶33

..5..

¶34

Crl.M.C.No. 3473/2020

¶35

also, there are absolutely no allegation against the petitioner. However, in the statement of the husband of the 2^nd respondent, there is a stray sentence that the petitioner beat him. But such an allegation is absolutely absent in the FIS as well as in the statement of the remaining witnesses. Based on the said stray statement alone, it cannot be said that the offence under Section 323 of IPC is attracted against the petitioner.

¶36

For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that, no purpose will be served in proceeding further against the petitioner. Hence, all further proceedings in C.C.No.4342/ 2016 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate CourtI, Thrissur against the petitioner are hereby quashed. The Crl.M.C. is allowed.

¶37

Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE

¶38

APA

¶39

Crl.M.C.No. 3473/2020

¶40

..6..

¶41

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3473/2020

¶42

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES

¶43

ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE FIS & FIR GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN CRIME NO.2141/2016 OF MANNUTHY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.2141/2016 OF MANNUTHY POLICE STATION.

Sandra Maria v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandra Maria 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

Chandra Mouli, Vs State of Kerala

Rakhesh Vs State of Kerala

Xxx Vs State of Kerala

Asokan Vs State of Kerala

Niveditha Vs Selvadasan

Sudheesh Vs State of Kerala