Dismissed¶36

Usha Balan v. Sheeja

Kerala HC3 Apr 2025Crl.MC/5865/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala High Court, Ernakulam; Crl.MC No.5865 of 2018; Justice G. Girish; decision dated 03.04.2025 (2025:KER:28650). Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash CC No.2604/2017 (JFCM-III, Thrissur) arising from Crime No.796/2017, Mannuthy Police Station — offences under Sections 498A, 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC (dowry-related mental cruelty). Settlement/joint compromise (Annexure A2) pleaded but unsubstantiated; Court declined to weigh prosecution evidence at interlocutory stage; quashing refused; Crl.M.C. dismissed; trial to proceed.

What did the court decide?

This Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot sit on judgment upon the acceptability of the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce before the Trial Court. ¶35

Usha Balan Vs Sheeja — Dowry and Cruelty | Kerala HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings in CC No.2604/2017 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thrissur (arising from Crime No.796/2017, offences under Sections 498A and 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC) should be quashed by the High Court under its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners contending that the dispute with the 1st respondent (de facto complainant) stands settled.

¶35

Court's answer

¶35

Ratio / Principle

On going through the Final Report and the accompanying records, it appears that the Investigating Agency has garnered the requisite materials to establish the charge levelled against the petitioners.

¶32

Key takeaways

The petitioners did not bring anything on record to substantiate their contention of settlement; if at all there is any such settlement, the de facto complainant and the other witnesses have to prove it by evidence before the Trial Court so that the conviction of the petitioners could be avoided.ratio¶35
It is not possible for this Court to quash the proceedings pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thrissur, in CC No.2604/2017, as prayed for in the petition.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of proceedings refused — Section 482 Cr.P.C. — Petitioners (accused 1 to 3, being the father, mother and sister of the husband) in Crime No.796/2017 of Mannuthy Police Station, charged for offences under Sections 498A and 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC on allegations of subjecting the wife/de facto complainant to mental cruelty demanding more dowry, sought quashing of the trial in CC No.2604/2017 of JFCM-III, Thrissur, pleading settlement with the complainant. Held: (i) the High Court cannot, in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., sit on judgment upon the acceptability of the evidence the prosecution proposes to adduce at trial; (ii) on the Final Report and accompanying records, the Investigating Agency appears to have garnered requisite materials to establish the charge; (iii) the settlement contention was unsubstantiated — any settlement must be proved by the de facto complainant and other witnesses before the Trial Court, whereupon conviction could be avoided. Petition dismissed. (G. Girish, J.; 03.04.2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1947

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 5865 OF 2018

¶6

CRIME NO.796/2017 OF MANNUTHY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR

¶7

CC NO.2604 OF 2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

¶8

CLASS -III,THRISSUR

¶9

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶10

1 USHA BALAN

¶11

AGED 63 YEARS
W/O BALAN P.V., PAMBUNGAL HOUSE, CHIRAKKEKODE,
VELLANIKKARA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT- 680654

¶12

2 BALAN P.V

¶13

AGED 68 YEARS

¶14

S/O VELUNNI, PAMBUNGAL HOUSE, CHIRAKKEKODE,
VELLANIKKARA PO, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680654.

¶15

3 SIMI

¶16

AGED 41 YEARS
W/O SATHYAN, PERUMBILLY HOUSE, MINOR ROAD, NADATHARA,
THRISSUR DISTRICT-680751

¶17

RESPONDENTS/VICTIM & STATE:

¶18

1 SHEEJA

¶19

AGED 32 YEARS W/O SIMIL, CHANASSERY HOUSE, VELLANIKKARA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680654

¶20

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

¶21

SMT SEETHA S, SR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 03.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶23

2025:KER:28650

¶24

Crl.M.C No.5865/2018 2

¶25

ORDER

¶26

No representation from the petitioners for the second consecutive

¶27

posting date.

¶28

The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.796/2017 of the Mannuthy Police Station, Thrissur District. The offences alleged against them are under Sections 498A and 323 IPC, read with Section 34 IPC. After the completion of the investigation, the SI of Police, Mannuthy, filed Final Report against the petitioners in respect of the aforesaid offences.

¶29

The prosecution case is that, ever since the marriage of CW1 with CW2 on 31.12.2000, the petitioners, who are the father, mother and sister of CW2, have been subjecting her to mental cruelty demanding more dowry. It is alleged that even the entry of the de facto complainant and her husband to the house of the petitioners was prevented by them as part of the cruelty meted out to her.

¶30

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of

¶31

Kerala.

¶32

On going through the Final Report and the accompanying records, it appears that the Investigating Agency has garnered the requisite materials to establish the charge levelled against the petitioners.

¶33

2025:KER:28650

¶34

Crl.M.C No.5865/2018 3

¶35

It is not possible for this Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to sit on judgment upon the acceptability of the aforesaid evidence, which the prosecution proposes to adduce before the Trial Court. True that there is a contention set forth in this petition that the dispute between the petitioners and the 1st respondent has been settled. However, the petitioners did not care to bring on record anything to substantiate the aforesaid contention. If at all there is any such settlement, the de facto complainant and the other witnesses have to adduce evidence before the Trial Court in that regard so that the conviction of the petitioners could be avoided. At any rate, it is not possible for this Court to quash the proceedings pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thrissur, in CC No.2604/2017, as prayed for in this petition.

¶36

In the result, the petition is hereby dismissed.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

G.GIRISH JUDGE

¶39

IAP

¶40

2025:KER:28650

¶41

Crl.M.C No.5865/2018 4

¶42

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5865/2018

¶43

PETITIONERS’ ANNEXURES:

¶44

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO.796/2017 OF THE MANNUTHY POLICE STATION
DATED 26.07.2017.

¶45

ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JOINT COMPROMISE
PETITION FILED BEFORE THE JFCM NO.III,
THRISSUR.

Usha Balan v. Sheeja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usha Balan v. Sheeja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mani Vs State of Kerala

Venkataswamy Sreenivasa Reddy Vs the State of Kerala

Sachu Sajeevan, Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Kumar Shetty Vs the State of Kerala

Abdul Rahim, Vs Arifa Beevi

Jaleel U.V. Vs Muhammed Thalikkandy