IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2011 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3435 of 2011() ------------------------- (CRIME NO.301/2011 OF NEDUMKANDAM POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT) ------ PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------------- SREEVIDYA, W/O.RAJESH, AIKKARAKKUNNEL, KOLANI P.O., NEDUMKANDAM, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, (CRIME NO.301/2011 OF NEDUMKANDAM POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT). 2. DHANYA, D/O.ARAVINDAKSHAN, AGED 31 YEARS, KAMALALAYAM, 3RD CAMP KARA, KARUNAPURAM VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI-685 554. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN R2 BY SRI.RAJU SEBASTIAN VADAKKEKKARA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK Crl.MC.No. 3435 of 2011() -------------------------------- APPENDIX ----------- PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS ------------------------------- ANNEXURE 1- COPY FIRST INFORMATION REPORT ALONG WITH FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT IN CRIME NO.301/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL -------------------------------- / TRUE COPY / P.A TO JUDGE VK N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.3435 of 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is the 3rd accused in Crime No.301/2011 of Nedumkandam Police Station. The complaint was filed by the 2nd respondent alleging offences punishable under Secs.498A, 406, 506(i) and 421 r/w 34 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the only allegation is that the property which belonged to the 2nd accused, the mother of the first accused was sold to the petitioner herein who is the daughter of the 2nd accused. That will not in any way attract the offence of cruelty coming under Sec.498A IPC. Since the title deed was in the name of the mother, she is at liberty to execute a sale deed in favour of her daughter. That also cannot attract any offence, the learned counsel submits. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that in fact it is the petitioner herein who was creating the whole dispute in the matrimonial home disrupting the matrimonial Crl.M.C. No.3435 of 2011 -: 2 :- relationship between the 2nd respondent and her husband. But there are no sufficient allegations to attract the offence under Sec.498A, 421 or other offences mentioned therein. Admittedly, the petitioner is residing with her husband at Thodupuzha, far away from the matrimonial home and as such, it is contended that there was no occasion for the petitioner to meddle with the relationship between the 2nd respondent and her husband. 2. Going by the averments in the complaint, I find that there are no materials to proceed against this petitioner. Hence, further proceedings as against this petitioner (shown as the 3rd accused in Crime No.301/2011 of Nedumkandam Police Station) will stand quashed. This Crl.M.C. is disposed of accordingly. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt