Prakashkumar P vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 8761 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                     PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
   THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1944
                          CRL.MC NO. 6196 OF 2021
       AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 73/2021 OF JUDICIAL
                MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONERS:

       1       PRAKASHKUMAR P.
               AGED 33 YEARS
               S/O.PRABHAKARAN, VINAYAKA, NEAR VINAYAKA TEMPLE,
               CPC SAI AVENUE, 3RD STGREET, COIMBATORE, PIN - 641
               108.
       2       SUMITHRA
               AGED 55 YEARS
               W/O.PRABHAKARAN, VINAYAKA, NEAR VINAYAKA TEMPLE,
               CPC SAI AVENUE, 3RD STREET, COIMBATORE, PIN - 641
               108.
       3       PRABHAKARAN
               AGED 64 YEARS
               S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI VINAYAKA, NEAR VINAYAKA TEMPLE,
               CPC SAI AVENUE, 3RD STREET, COIMBATORE, PIN - 641
               108.
               BY ADVS.
               V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN
               S.JAYAKUMAR
               M.V.DAS
               LEKSHMI SWAMINATHAN
               K.A.SABITHA
               R.K.SARASWATHY

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:

       1       STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
               KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 018.
       2       SHALINI K.
               AGED 30 YEARS
               D/O.VALSALAKUMARAN, PUNNAKKAL PURAYIDAM VEEDU,
               VALIYAMARAM WARD, THIRUVAMBADI P.O., PIN - 689 595.
               SRI P G MANU-SR PP

THIS       CRIMINAL   MISC.   CASE   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
07.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.M.C.No.6196 of 2021


                                  ..2..




                                ORDER

This Crl.M.C. has been filed to quash all further

proceedings in M.C. No. 73/2021 on the file of the Judicial First

Class Magistrate's Court-I, Alappuzha(for short, "the Court below").

2. The petitioners herein are the respondents in M.C. No.

73/2021 pending on the file of the Court below. The 2 nd respondent is

the petitioner. The marital relationship between the 2 nd respondent

and the petitioner is not in dispute. Admittedly, it is still subsisting.

However, the petitioners have got a case that the 2nd respondent

eloped with her lover and led an illicit relationship with him. The

M.C. No. 73/2021 has been filed by the 2 nd respondent invoking

Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence

Act(for short, "the DV Act) claiming various reliefs under Sections

18(a), 19(3), 19(8), 21 and 22 of the DV Act.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and

also the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Crl.M.C.No.6196 of 2021

..3..

4. According to the petitioners, all the allegations in the

MC are baseless and unsustainable and the said proceedings have

been initiated with an ulterior motive. It is submitted that the 2nd

respondent left the home of the 1st petitioner without his consent and

started a new life with her lover. It is further submitted that the

petitioner filed an Original Petition seeking divorce. It is after the

2nd respondent came to know about the same, MC No. 73/2021 has

been filed. It is in these circumstances, the petitioners have

approached this Court to quash all further proceedings in MC. No.

73/2021.

Admittedly, the 2nd respondent is the legally wedded wife

of the 1st petitioner. The marriage between them is still subsisting.

The 2nd respondent has claimed various reliefs against the petitioners

on the allegation that she is an aggrieved person and the 1 st petitioner

and the 2nd respondent have lived together as husband and wife. So

definitely, the 2nd respondent falls within the definition of an

"aggrieved person". She can very well maintain a petition under Crl.M.C.No.6196 of 2021

..4..

Section 12 of the DV Act against the petitioners. The question

whether the MC is frivolous or ill-motivated is something to be

adjudicated after conducting a full-fledged inquiry. The said question

of fact cannot be decided by this Court under the exercise of the

power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Hence, reserving liberty to

the petitioners to take up all the contentions raised in this Crl. M.C.

at the Court below, this Crl. M.C. stands dismissed.

Sd/-

DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE RMV Crl.M.C.No.6196 of 2021

..5..

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6196/2021

PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE. Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF A LETTER OBTAINED FROM JAIN HERITAGE SCHOOL, BANGALORE.

Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE PRINTED VERSION OF WHATSAPP CHAT BETWEEN THE 1ST PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT FROM 03/02/2020 TO 10/02/2020.

Annexure A4 TRUE COPY THE PRINTED VERSION OF THE WHATSAPP DP PHOTOS, WHATSAPP STATUS AND E-MAIL I D PROFILE PHOTO.

Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE POLICE COMPLAINT NCR NO.107/2020 DATED 10/02/2020, BEFORE THE AMRUTHALLI POLICE STATION, BANGALORE.

Annexure A5A ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF A5. Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED TO AMRITHAHALLI POLICE STATION BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.

Annexure A7 TRUE COPIES OF THEIR E-MAIL MESSAGES BETWEEN THE 1ST PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND FB POST OF MR.ACHU KANNAN.

Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOS OF THE MINOR CHILD ALONG WITH THE PETITIONERS.

Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF MC NO.912/2021 DATED 08/02/2021.

Annexure A10 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT. Annexure A11 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PRINTED VERSION OF THE PHONEPAY MESSAGE.