IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1458 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.94/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1,3 & 5 TO 7: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. ASHRAF, S/O.HAMSA @ KUNHU HAMSA, AGED 28 YEARS, MELETHIL HOUSE, VALLAPUZHA P.O., OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. HALEEMA, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O.HAMSA @ KUNHU HAMSA, DO. DO. 3. SALAM, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.HAMSA @ KUNHU HAMSA, DO. DO. 4. SELMATH, W/O.MOHAMMEDALI, AGED 26 YEARS, DO. DO. 5. HASEENA, AGED 19 YEARS, W/O.UMMAR, ZEENATH MANZIL, KONIKKIZHI P.O., PULAPETTA, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.SANTHEEP ANKARATH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. HASEENA, AGED 18 YEARS, D/O.ABDURAHIMAN @ MANI, KURURAMPADAM HOUSE, KONIKKIZHI P.O., PULAPETTA, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV.MR.K.C.ELDHO R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2010, THE COURT ON 15/02/2010 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- Cr. MC No.1458 of 2008-B ------------------------------------- Dated 15th February 2010 Order This is a petition filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to have Annexure A3 complaint as well as all further proceedings in CC No.94/07, pending before the JFCM Court-II, Palakkad, quashed. 2. Petitioners 1, 3 and 5 are the children and the fourth petitioner is the daughter-in-law, of the second petitioner. The first respondent is the wife of the first petitioner. The marriage between the first petitioner and the first respondent was solemnized on 26.06.2005. The first petitioner is employed abroad. It is averred in the complaint filed by the first respondent that at the time of marriage, she was given 50 sovereigns of gold by her parents. As per the complaint, as soon as she reached the matrimonial house, the petitioners began to torture and CR.MC 1458/08 2 mentally harass the first respondent, demanding more dowry. She was physically harassed by the petitioners. It is also stated in the complaint that the father of the petitioners herein runs a business in the Middle East and the first accused/first petitioner herein often goes there. After marriage, the first petitioner left for the Middle East. It is stated that during the absence of the first accused, the other accused persons/petitioners herein used to harass and torture her. It is also asserted that she was physically assaulted by the petitioners. Several allegations are made in the complaint, pointing out that her life was miserable in the matrimonial house. Finally, according to the complainant, she was thrown out of the house. It is also stated in the complaint that recently, she was being threatened to agree for divorce. 3. The petitioners would say that the allegations in the complaint are totally false and are contrary to the true state of affairs. According to them, 4½ months after the marriage, the first petitioner left for his work to the CR.MC 1458/08 3 Middle East and returned only in January 2007. Soon after the first petitioner left the place, the first respondent was residing in the house of the first petitioner's father. It is pointed out that on 01.11.2006 at about 11 O' clock in the night, the third petitioner heard two persons talking in the room occupied by the first respondent. As the first respondent was supposed to be alone in the room, out of curiosity, the third petitioner knocked at the door and when the door was opened, to his surprise, he saw the first respondent in a compromising position with another person. That person was apprehended and handed over to the police. It is stated that the matter was informed to the parents of the first respondent, who took her back to their home. Eversince then, it is submitted that she has not returned from her parental house. 4. On 05.04.2007, the first petitioner was arrested by Cherplacherry Police, stating that a bailable warrant is issued by the JFCM Court-II, Palakkad, pursuant to a complaint filed by the first respondent. Thereafter, he CR.MC 1458/08 4 was released on bail. The main contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the allegations in the complaint are vague and general in nature and no specific instances are mentioned in it. According to them, the complaint has been filed by the first respondent to get over the extra-marital act committed by her. The allegations contained in the complaint, according to the learned counsel, are totally false. They say that it has been made with the ulterior motive to cover the misdeeds of the first respondent. The learned counsel also referred to the sworn in statement by the first respondent to point out that it contains nothing as stated in the complaint and therefore, it can be seen that the complaint is a frivolous one. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, on the other hand, submitted that there are specific allegations in the complaint, which is produced as Annexure A3, which shows that the life of the first respondent in the matrimonial house had become miserable due to the cruel acts committed by the CR.MC 1458/08 5 petitioners herein. It is also pointed out that the story of extra-marital relationship, is a cooked up one and there is no justification for the same. The said allegation is raised, only to cover up the cruel acts committed by the petitioners towards the first respondent. 6. The petitioners have produced the sworn statement by the first respondent. It is true that except making some general statements, it does not contain any specific instances. But, the complaint and the sworn statement will have to be read together to ascertain whether any offence is made out. It is also true that no specific dates or instances as such are mentioned in the complaint. It narrates the agony of the complainant and the bitter experience she had in the matrimonial house. Even though the petitioners have produced some notes said to have been made by the complainant, they cannot be taken into consideration at this point of time. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first respondent has subsequently married another person, CR.MC 1458/08 6 which is in dispute. 7. Even though allegations are made against almost all the petitioners, the specific allegation remains confined to petitioners 1, 2 and 3 herein. The allegations against petitioners 4 and 5 are very vague and too meagre. It would appear that they have been simply dragged into the Court. 8. Whether there is any substance in the complaint or not, is a matter to be gone into later. The fact remains that the Court below was satisfied that there was a prima facie case and it had taken cognizance of the complaint. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Ss.120B, 323, 341, 354 and 498A r/w. S.34 IPC. 9. As already noticed, the proceedings seem to be ill-advised as far as petitioners 4 and 5 are concerned. So far as petitioners 4 and 5 are concerned, the proceedings in CC No.94/07 of JFCM Court-II, Palakkad shall stand quashed and as far as the other petitioners (petitioners 1 to 3) are concerned, if they have a case that CR.MC 1458/08 7 no offences have been made out on the basis of the materials available before Court, they can certainly approach the Court below and seek a discharge. Reserving the liberty of the petitioners 1 to 3 to do so, this Petition is disposed of. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta CR.MC 1458/08 8