Kerala High Court
Crime No.2434/2020 Of ... vs By Advs on 15 January, 2021
CRL.A.No.584 OF 2020 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 25TH POUSHA, 1942
CRL.A.No.584 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 310/2020 OF DISTRICT COURT&
SESSIONS COURT,PATHANAMTHITTA
CRIME NO.2434/2020 OF Pathanamthitta Police Station ,
Pathanamthitta
APPELLANT/ACCUSED 1 AND 2
1 AJUMON
AGED 22 YEARS
S/O JAYA KUMAR,AJU BHAVAN,
NEDUVANNOOR,NEDUVANNOOR MURI,
AVANEESWARAM R.S(PO),PIDAVOOR VILLAGE,PATHANAPURAM
TALUK,
PIN--691508,KOLLAM DISTRICT.
2 ANITHA KUMARI,
AGED 43 YEARS
W/O.JAYAKUMAR,AJU BHAVAN,
NEDUVANNOOR,NEDUVANNOOR MURI,AVANEESWARAM R.S(PO),
PIN-691508.PIDAVOOR VILLAGE,
PATHANAPURAM TALUK,KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR
SMT.LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA,
ERNAKULAM-682031.
2 PUNYA PRABHA,
D/O.ASHA LATHA,RADHA BHAVAN,
POONKAVU,VAZHAMUTTAM EAST.P.O,
PRAMADAM VILLAGE,KONNI TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,PIN-5600037(ADDRESS SHOWN
IN FIS)PERMANENT ADDRESS BEING R/O VELANPARAMBU
VEEDU,KARUMADY.P.O,
CRL.A.No.584 OF 2020 2
KARUMADY VILLAGE,AMBALAPUZHA TALUK,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688561.
OTHER PRESENT:
AJITH MURALI- P.P
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-01-
2021, THE COURT ON 15-01-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A.No.584 OF 2020 3
JUDGMENT
Challenging the order dated 29.7.2020 in Crl.M.P (B.A (T)No.310
of 2020) of the learned Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta, this appeal
has been filed by the petitioners. They are the accused in Crime
No.2434 of 2020 of Pathanamthitta Police station registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code
read with Section 3(1)(r)(s) of Scheduled Caste/Schedule Tribe
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for
short).
2. The allegation against these petitioners in brief is that the
defacto complainant, a member of Scheduled Caste Community, has
married the first petitioner as per the rites and ceremonies of Hindu
Marriage Act on 10.6.2019. While she was residing at her matrimonial
home along with the first petitioner and second petitioner, her mother
in law, she was intentionally insulted by the petitioners with the intent
to humiliate her as she is member of Scheduled Caste and abused her
by calling her caste name. They have also tortured her demanding
money from her family and thus they have committed the aforesaid
offences.
3. Their application for pre-arrest bail was dismissed by the
learned Sessions Judge by the order under challenge. Aggrieved by
the same this appeal has been filed. It is submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioners that a love affair for a long period of six
years culminated in marriage and they were residing together as
husband and wife at her matrimonial home. But gradually the
relationship has strained and resulted in separation since 21.7.2019.
The first accused thereafter filed an O.P before the Family Court,
Kottarakara for declaring their marriage as null and void. Thereafter,
the second petitioner has also filed a suit before the Munsiff Court and
by an order in the I.A filed as 1236 of 2019, the learned Munsiff inter
alia restrained the defacto complainant from trespassing into the plaint
schedule property or causing mischief in the property scheduled
therein. That instigated her to file this false case. So because of her
vengeance towards the petitioners with ulterior motive she had lodged
this false complaint before the police and thus the crime happened to
be registered against them, is their case. Though they are innocent
they apprehend arrest and undeserved harassment from the police
and hence this appeal.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the
investigation of the case is going on smoothly. But the application is
opposed as a prima facie case has been made out against the
petitioners.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
Public Prosecutor.
6. The main allegation levelled against these petitioners is that
they have insulted the defacto complainant by calling her caste name
within public view and intentionally insulted and humiliated her as she
is a member of Scheduled Caste. It is true that the defacto
complainant is a member of Scheduled Caste. But the offences under
these sections are attracted only if the insult/intimidation or abuse
was made by a member of another community within the public view.
The Act was enacted with laudable object and aim to protect as well
to prevent or elude humiliation, harassment, indignities, intimidation,
atrocities, brutal caste violence etc against the members of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Therefore, the expression "Public view "
in the Act means a place where a public persons are present or public
has access. If the public has no access to the place where the alleged
incident has happened, no offence under these sections are attracted.
Prima facie, on a perusal of the materials available before me, it could
be seen that the alleged offence had taken place within the four walls
of the residential house of the petitioners where the public had
absolutely no access. It is also not revealed prima facie that public
were there when the alleged offences were committed by the
petitioners. So apparently it is revealed from the records that no
prima facie case has been made out to infer that the petitioners
intentionally insulted or intimidated with the intent to humiliate the
defacto complainant in a place within public view. In short, the
essential ingredient required to attract the aforesaid offences, is
conspicuously lacking, at least at this stage.
7. It would also be pertinent to refer to the following observation
of the Apex Court in Prathviraj Chauhan v. Union of India [2020
(1) KLT 810 (SC)] that if the complaint does not make out a prima
facie case, the bar under Section 18 and 18A of the Act shall not
apply. The records clearly indicate that the investigation of the case
is only in the preliminary stage, still I think that the request for
anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners as prima facie no
case has been made out against them and the investigation is
proceeding smoothly. Therefore, the order under challenge is liable to
be set aside.
This appeal is accordingly allowed and anticipatory bail is granted
to the petitioners subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioners shall be released on bail on executing
bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only)
with two solvent sureties for the like sum each in the event of
their arrest by the police in connection with the above crime.
(ii) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating
Officer for interrogation as and when required by him in
writing. They shall co-operate with the investigation of the
case.
(iii) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly, make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with
the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing
such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with
the evidence.
(iv) The petitioners shall not commit any offence while on
bail.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the
learned Sessions Judge is empowered to cancel the bail in
accordance with the law.
(However, it is made clear that the observations made above are
only for the limited purpose of consideration and disposal of this
appeal.)
Sd/-
SHIRCY V.
smm JUDGE
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A-1 TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R.IN CRIME
NO.2434/2020 OF THE PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE
STATION,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
ANNEXURE A-2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF O.P.
(HMA)888/2019 ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY
COURT,KOTTARAKKARA.
ANNEXURE A-3 TRUE COPY OF THE CASE STATUS FROM THE
FAMILY COURT,KOTTARAKKARA FOR
O.P(HMA)NO.888/2019.
ANNEXURE A-4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.8.2019 IN
I.A.NO.1236/2019 IN O.S.NO.209/2019 ON THE
FILES OF THE MUNSIFF COURT,PUNALUR.
