Kerala High Court
S.Jayaram vs State Of Kerala on 4 July, 2025
2025:KER:48570
Crl.M.C.No.6 of 2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO.6 OF 2025
CRIME NO.692/2016 OF NARAKKAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
CC NO.471 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
COURT, NJARAKKAL
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2:
1 S.JAYARAM
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O.SREENIVASAN,
4-STATE BANK COLONY,
AZHIL NAGAR, PERUMALPURAM P.O.,
THIRUNELVELI, TAMIL NADU,
PIN - 627007
2 SEETHA SREENIVASAN
AGED 64 YEARS
W/O.SREENIVASAN,
4-STATE BANK COLONY,
AZHIL NAGAR, PERUMALPURAM P.O.,
THIRUNELVELI, TAMIL NADU,
PIN - 627007
BY ADV SHRI.SHINE N.S
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
NJARAKKAL POLICE STATION,
NJARAKKAL P.O., ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682505
2025:KER:48570
Crl.M.C.No.6 of 2025 2
3 SMT.RESHMI
SIVADASA MANDIRAM,
PERUMALPADY EAST, MALIPPURAM P.O.,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682511
BY ADVS. SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP FOR R3
SMT.O.A.NURIYA
SRI.D.S.LOKANATHAN
SRI.ALAN PRIYADARSHI DEV
SMT.REVATHY P. MANOHARAN
SMT.CHANDANA VIJAYAN
SMT.ATHULLYA S.
SRI. SANAL P. RAJ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.06.2025, THE COURT ON 04.07.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:48570
Crl.M.C.No.6 of 2025 3
ORDER
Originally, this Crl.M.C was filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.471/2024 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Njarakkal. On 27.03.2025, the learned counsel for the petitioners filed a memo stating that the second petitioner had already instituted Crl.M.C No.6272/2023 for quashing the proceedings against her in C.C.No.471/2024 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Njarakkal, and hence she may be permitted to withdraw herself from this Crl.M.C. In the light of the above memo, the first petitioner alone is considered as the sole petitioner in this Crl.M.C.
2. The prayer in this petition is to quash the proceedings against the petitioner, who is the first accused in C.C.No.471/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Njarakkal. The offence alleged against him are under Sections 498A and 506(i) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'IPC').
3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner who married the de facto complainant/third respondent, had been subjecting the de facto complainant to matrimonial cruelty from the first night of their marriage itself. It is further alleged that the unbearable physical and 2025:KER:48570 Crl.M.C.No.6 of 2025 4 mental tortures continued at London where the first petitioner and the de facto complainant started residing from 26.10.2015 onwards. According to the prosecution, the petitioner continued the mental cruelty towards the de facto complainant after the return of the de facto complainant to her native place, by threatening her that she would not be permitted to live unless she withdrew the complaint which she preferred at London against the physical tortures inflicted upon her by the first petitioner. The mother of the first petitioner who was earlier arraigned as the second petitioner in this Crl.M.C, is alleged to have supported the aforesaid cruelty of the first petitioner.
4. The case has been registered by the Njarakkal Police as per the directions of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Njarakkal in a complaint preferred by the de facto complainant. After the completion of the investigation, the S.I of Police, Njarakkal has filed the final report alleging the aforesaid offences against the petitioner and his mother.
5. In the present petition, the petitioner/first accused would contend that a false has been foisted against him and his mother. According to the petitioner, the de facto complainant maintained a peculiar state of mind of cooking up stories and raising false allegations against the petitioner. Another contention raised by the petitioner is 2025:KER:48570 Crl.M.C.No.6 of 2025 5 that the present prosecution case is not maintainable for want of sanction under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'Cr.PC').
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the de facto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
7. The main argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the further proceedings against him in C.C.No.471/2024 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Njarakkal, are an abuse of process of court, since no sanction as required under Section 188 Cr.PC for the conduct of trial of the offence committed outside India, has been obtained. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the whole allegations of matrimonial cruelty attributed against him are about the incidents happened at London, and hence the trial cannot be conducted without the sanction of the Central Government as envisaged under Section 188 Cr.PC.
8. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the above regard, is factually incorrect. It could be seen from the prosecution records that the allegation of cruelty is there right 2025:KER:48570 Crl.M.C.No.6 of 2025 6 from the first night of the marriage of the petitioner and the de facto complainant. There is specific contention in the statement of the de facto complainant that she has suffered mental trauma due to the act of the petitioner who came in an inebriated stage to the bedroom on the first night of their marriage. That apart, it is seen from the statement of the de facto complainant that the matrimonial cruelty of the petitioner continued even after he came back to India from London. The petitioner is alleged to have threatened the de facto complainant that he would not permit her to live unless she withdrew the complaint preferred against him at London. Thus, it is apparent that the offence alleged against the petitioner is one of continuing nature, and not merely confined to the incidents which happened at London. Therefore, the sanction as required under Section 188 Cr.PC is not essential for the conduct of the trial of this case. Needless to say that the challenge raised by the petitioner in the above regard, is devoid of merit.
9. It is apparent from the final report and the accompanying records relied on by the prosecution that the investigating agency had gathered sufficient materials to bring home the offence under Section 498A IPC attributed against the petitioner. The extent to which the 2025:KER:48570 Crl.M.C.No.6 of 2025 7 above materials could be relied on, is a matter which the Trial Court has to decide. It is not possible for this Court, in the proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to sit on judgment as to how far the evidence which the prosecution propose to adduce, is acceptable. All those matters would come under the arena of the Trial Court. Accordingly, I find that the prayer in this petition to quash the proceedings against the petitioner, cannot be allowed.
In the result, the petition is hereby dismissed.
(sd/-)
G. GIRISH, JUDGE
jsr/DST
2025:KER:48570
Crl.M.C.No.6 of 2025 8
APPENDIX
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
31/05/2016 AND FIR IN CRIME NO.692/2016 OF
NJARAKKAL POLICE STATION DATED 03/06/2016
ANNEXURE A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT
SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN
C.C.NO:471/2019 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, NJARAKKAL DATED
16/07/2018