Partly allowed

Sandhya.K.v, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC31 Jul 2024Crl.MC/5493/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed the orders of cognizance against the 2nd accused in a criminal case involving alleged public nuisance and cruelty, holding that the offence did not occur in a public place and the accused was a stranger in the domestic dispute, while permitting continuation for other charges.

What did the court decide?

Cognizance taken by Magistrate for offences under Section 294(b) IPC and Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC as against the petitioner is quashed.

Sandhya.K.v, Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN WEDNESDAY, THE 31^ST DAY OF JULY 2024 / 9TH SRAVANA, 1946 CRL.MC NO. 5493 OF 2022

¶4

CRIME NO.151/2020 OF VIYYUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.119 OF 2021 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,THRISSUR
PETITIONER:

¶5

SANDHYA.K.V
AGED 45 YEARS

¶6

F-4,VRINDAVAN,NORTH FORT,THRIPOONITHURA,ERNAKULAM,
PIN – 682301

¶7

BY ADVS.
R.LEELA
M.SREELAKSHMI
ARUN SEBASTIAN

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031

¶10

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VIYYOOR POLICE STATION THRISSUR CITY, PIN – 680010

¶11

3SAILAJA
AGED 54 YEARS
W/O RAMKUMAR,IX13,PANIKKAVEETTIL HOUSE,POOVANI
DESAM KOLAZHY,THRISSUR CITY., PIN – 680010

¶12

BY ADVS.
S.RAJEEV S
M.S.ANEER(K/644/2013)
V.VINAY(K/355/2009)
SARATH K.P.(K/001467/2021)
PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH(K/000736/2015)
ANILKUMAR C.R.(K/001190/2020)

¶13

Crl.M.C No.5493 of 2022 2

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

PP M P PRASANTH

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
31.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Crl.M.C No.5493 of 2022 3

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Dated this the 31^st day of July, 2024

¶20

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section

¶21

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash all further proceedings in Annexure A1 charge sheet against the petitioner in C.C No.119/2021 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thrissur, arose out of Crime No.151/2020 of Viyyoor Police Station, Thrissur. The petitioner herein is the 2^nd accused in the above case.

¶22

Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned

¶23

counsel appearing for the de facto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the relevant materials available.

¶24

In this matter, initially offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 325, 506, 498A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’) were alleged and accordingly FIR was registered. On completion of investigation, final report filed alleging offences excluding Section 325 of the IPC, for which the trial Court took cognizance.

¶25

Crl.M.C No.5493 of 2022 4

¶26

The learned counsel for the 2^nd accused, who is the petitioner herein, vehemently canvased to establish that, none of the offences would attract against the 2^nd accused. It is pointed out that, in order to attract an offence under Section 294(b) of IPC, the overt acts referred in Section 294(b) of IPC shall be uttered in a public place or near a public place. Here, the place of occurrence is inside a flat, where public have no access and there was nobody to have annoyance in this regard. It is also argued that the offence under Section 498A read with 34 of IPC also would not attract against the petitioner, who is a total stranger, as far as the 1^st accused, who is the husband of the de facto complainant is concerned.

¶27

The learned counsel for the de facto complainant would submit that prima facie all the offences made out and for which trial is necessary. According to him, apart from the offences for which cognizance was taken, offence under Section 509 of the IPC is also made out.

¶28

Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner argued to substantiate that no offence under Section 506(1) of the IPC is also made out, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the

¶29

Crl.M.C No.5493 of 2022 5

¶30

de facto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor, allegation of threat at the instance of 1^st and 2^nd accused is prima facie made out.

¶31

On perusal of the records, it could be seen that, the offence under Section 294(b) is not made out prima facie, since, the overt acts as to the utterance of obscene words were made inside a flat and the same is not either a public place or place near public place. Similarly, no offence under Section 498A would attract as against the petitioner who is a 3^rd party, in view of the specific wording in the statutory provisions.

¶32

Holding so, this petition is allowed in part and cognizance taken by the Magistrate for the offences punishable under Section 294(b) of the IPC as well as Section 498A read with 34 of the IPC as against the petitioner/2^nd accused is quashed, while allowing continuance of trial for the other offences, as per the prosecution allegations or otherwise, in accordance with law. Since, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, as far as possible, the personal appearance of the petitioner may be ordered to be dispensed with, there shall be a direction to the Magistrate to grant exemption from the personal appearance of the petitioner as far as possible, though

¶33

Crl.M.C No.5493 of 2022 6

¶34

the Magistrate is at liberty to insist presence of the petitioner for the purpose of identity as well Section 313 examination and for

¶35

pronouncing judgment.

Sd/-

A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE

Crl.M.C No.5493 of 2022 7

¶40

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5493/2022

¶41

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶42

ANNEXURE A1THE ACCUSED COPY OF CHARGE SHEET
NO.1074/2020 IN CRIME NO.151/2020 IN
C.C.NO.119/2021 PENDING BEFORE THE JFCM-1
THRISSUR ALONG WITH FIR

Sandhya.K.v, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandhya.K.v, 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

Anil Thankan Vs State Represented by the Public Prosecutor

Khaleel Vs State of Kerala

Binshad Vs State of Kerala

Faisal Vs State of Kerala

Siby Mathew, Vs the State of Kerala

Dr.Sreethu Gopi Vs Sruthi Janarthanan