Allowed

Sreedharan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Jun 2024Crl.MC/3422/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Parents (accused 3 and 4) sought quashing of proceedings under Section 495 IPC arising from a second marriage during subsistence of the complainant's marriage. The Court found only vague allegations of parental knowledge, since it was a registered marriage, and quashed proceedings against them.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings in C.C. No.230/2013 quashed as against accused Nos. 3 and 4; expedited trial directed against accused 1 and 2 within four months.

Sreedharan Vs State of Kerala — Dowry and Cruelty | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1946

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 3422 OF 2018

¶6

IN CC NO.230 OF 2013 PENDING ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

¶7

MAGISTRATE COURT-I, ALUVA

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 3 & 4:

¶9

1 SREEDHARAN

¶10

AGED 66 YEARS
AGED 66, LAKSHMI VIHAR, THAIKKAVU BHAGOM, MUTTOM,
THAIKKATTU KARA, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ALUVA.

¶11

2 PANKAJAVALLI

¶12

AGED 63 YEARS

¶13

W/O. SREEDHARAN, AGED 63, LAKSHMI VIHAR, THAIKKAVU BHAGOM,
MUTTOM, THAIKKATTU KARA, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ALUVA.
BY ADV SMT.M.S.KIRAN

¶14

RESPONDENTS/STATE & PETITIONERS:

¶15

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

2 SMT. DHANEESHA D/O. SIVASANKARAN NAIR, ANNAVELIL, CHARAMANGALAM MURIYIL, THANNIRMUKKU SOUTH VILLAGE, CHERTHAI TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 552.

¶17

SR PP - RENJIT GEORGE

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Crl.M.C. No. 3422 of 2018

¶20

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Dated this the 7 th day of June, 2024

¶23

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure.A1 complaint, pending as C.C. No.230/2013 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as

¶25

well as the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the complaint and averments therein in particular.

¶26

In this matter, the petitioners herein are accused Nos. 3 and 4 in C.C. No.230/2013 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva, where the offence punishable under Section 495 read with Section 34 IPC are alleged. The case arose from a private complaint filed by the defacto complainant/2^nd respondent herein, claiming that the 1^st accused married her and during the subsistence of the said marriage, the 1^st accused married the 2^nd accused under the Special

¶27

Crl.M.C. No. 3422 of 2018

¶28

¶29

Marriage Act, on 02.02.2007. Accused Nos.3 and 4 are the parents of the 1^st accused and accused Nos. 5 to 7 are the witnesses to the above marriage. Pursuant to the complaint laid, the statement of the complainant was recorded as CW1 and the Sub Registrar and another witness were examined as CW2 and CW3. On the basis of

¶30

the materials let in by the defacto complainant, cognizance was taken and summons was ordered to the accused.

¶31

Precisely, the allegation in the complaint is that the 1^st accused married the 2^nd accused on 02.02.2007 under the Special Marriage Act. It is alleged that accused Nos.3 and 4, the petitioners herein, who are parents of the 1^st accused were also aware this fact and the marriage was solemnized with their knowledge.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and the allegations are false. The learned counsel for the petitioners also placed the order of this Court dated 16.09.2017 in Crl.M.C. No.7427/2015, whereby this Court quashed the case against accused Nos. 5 and 7, who

¶33

Crl.M.C. No. 3422 of 2018

¶34

¶35

alleged to have witnessed and signed as witnesses in the second marriage.

¶36

The learned Public Prosecutor not seriously opposed the prayer for quashment in the facts of the given case.

¶37

Going by the allegations, the marriage between the 1^st and 2^nd accused has been solemnized, while the marriage between the 1^st accused and the defacto complainant has been subsisting. Thus, the prosecution case is well made out, prima facie. However, the complaint contain only a vague allegation that the second marriage of the 1^st accused was with the knowledge of accused Nos. 3 and 4. On perusal of the materials available, the marriage between the 1^st and 2^nd accused was a register marriage. Therefore, the knowledge of the parents about the second marriage, where it is alleged that the 1^st accused is a person, who worked in Saudi Arabia and then in England, are not made out, prima facie. Therefore, I am inclined to allow the prayer for quashment at the instance of the petitioners.

¶38

Accordingly, this petition stands allowed and all

¶39

Crl.M.C. No. 3422 of 2018

¶40

¶41

further proceedings pursuant to Annexure.A1 complaint, pending as C.C. No.230/2013 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva stand quashed as against the petitioners/accused Nos. 3 and 4.

¶42

It is specifically ordered that, since the case has been pending from 2013 onwards, the learned Magistrate is directed to expedite the trial against accused Nos.1 and

¶43

2 and complete the same at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and report compliance.

¶44

Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to

¶45

the trial court, within three days, for information and further steps.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE

¶48

¶49

Crl.M.C. No. 3422 of 2018

¶50

¶51

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3422/2018

¶52

PETITIONER ANNEXURES :
ANNEXURE A1

¶53

A TRUE COPY OF C.M.P.NO. 1472/11 FILED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT PENDING AS C.C.NO.
230/2013 ON THE FILES OF JFCM-1 ALUVA.

¶54

RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES : NIL

Sreedharan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreedharan 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

Rajesh Vijayan Vs the State of Kerala

Muhammad Ali Vs State of Kerala

Gopalakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Thomas George Vs the Station House Officer

Abhijosh Vs State of Kerala

Narayanan Vs State of Kerala