Sandra Maria vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 736 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
 THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 22ND POUSHA, 1944
                    CRL.MC NO. 3473 OF 2020
        AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 4342/2016 OF
        JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,THRISSUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:

          SANDRA MARIA
          AGED 23 YEARS, D/O.STANLY,
          KOMBARAKKARA HOUSE,
          MUKATTUKARA DESOM, THRISSUR - 680516.

          BY ADVS.
          P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)
          SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN
          SRI.P.M.RAFIQ
          SRI.V.C.SARATH
          SRI.AJEESH K.SASI
          SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN
          SMT.POOJA PANKAJ
          SRUTHY N. BHAT
          SHRI.ABEL TOM BENNY
RESPONDENTS/ STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
          HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031.
    2     MARY JOSPHINE
          AGED 71 YEARS, W/O.PAUL ALEXANDER,
          VENDHURUTHY HOUSE, MUKATTUKARA DESOM,
          OLLUKKARA, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR.
          BY ADV SRI.MAHESH V.MENON

          SANGEETHA RAJ PP

     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 12.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
 Crl.M.C.No. 3473/2020

                                  ..2..



                             ORDER

Dated this the 12th day of January, 2023

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

proceedings in C.C.No.4342/2016 on the files of the Judicial

First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thrissur (for short, 'the court

below') against the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is the 3rd accused. The accused

Nos. 1 and 2 are the parents of the petitioner. The 2 nd

respondent is the defacto complainant, who is the neighbour

of the petitioner and her parents.

3. The offences alleged against the petitioner are

punishable under Sections 448, 323, 341, 354, 506(ii) and

294(b) r/w 34 of IPC.

4. The prosecution case in short is that, on

23/10/2016 at about 3 pm, the petitioner along with the 1 st

and 2nd accused, trespassed into the house of the 2 nd

respondent, assaulted her and her husband with the

intention to outrage the modesty of the 2 nd respondent and

further criminally intimidated her. It is further alleged that Crl.M.C.No. 3473/2020

..3..

the accused Nos. 1 and 2 showered abusive words against

the 2nd respondent.

5. I have heard Smt.Nikita, the learned counsel for

the petitioner, Sri.Mahesh V. Menon, the learned counsel for

the respondent No.2 and Sri.Sangeetha Raj, the learned

Public Prosecutor.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that even if the entire allegations in the FIS together with

the materials collected during investigation are believed in

toto, no offence under Sections 448, 323, 341, 354, 506(ii)

and 294(b) of the IPC are attracted against the petitioner.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2 nd

respondent submitted that the allegations against the

petitioner and her parents together would constitute the

offences alleged with the aid of Section 34 of IPC and when

prima facie case is made out, the jurisdiction vested with

this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked.

7. I went through the FIS in detail. A reading of the

FIS would show that, there was pre-existing dispute Crl.M.C.No. 3473/2020

..4..

between the accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the 2nd respondent

and her husband. A reading of the FIS would show that the

entire allegations are against the 1st and 2nd accused. The

allegation in the FIS is that, on the date of incident, while

the 2nd respondent and her husband were taking rest at their

house after the lunch, the petitioner and the accused Nos. 1

and 2 trespassed into the house and the 1 st and 2nd accused

assaulted the 2nd respondent and the 1st accused criminally

intimidated the husband of the 2nd respondent and the 2nd

accused assaulted on the face of the husband of the 2 nd

respondent.

8. No overt act has been alleged against the present

petitioner. Even the presence of the petitioner at the place of

the incident is not so evident from the allegation in the FIS.

What is stated is that the 1st and 2nd accused along with one

of their children trespassed into their property. The name of

the petitioner has not been mentioned. It is submitted that

the 1st and 2nd accused have three children. In the statement

of 2nd respondent as well as in the statement of the son of

the 2nd respondent recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Crl.M.C.No. 3473/2020

..5..

also, there are absolutely no allegation against the

petitioner. However, in the statement of the husband of the

2nd respondent, there is a stray sentence that the petitioner

beat him. But such an allegation is absolutely absent in the

FIS as well as in the statement of the remaining witnesses.

Based on the said stray statement alone, it cannot be said

that the offence under Section 323 of IPC is attracted

against the petitioner.

For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that, no

purpose will be served in proceeding further against the

petitioner. Hence, all further proceedings in C.C.No.4342/

2016 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-

I, Thrissur against the petitioner are hereby quashed. The

Crl.M.C. is allowed.

Sd/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE

APA Crl.M.C.No. 3473/2020

..6..

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3473/2020

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE FIS & FIR GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN CRIME NO.2141/2016 OF MANNUTHY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR.

ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.2141/2016 OF MANNUTHY POLICE STATION.