Kerala High Court
Sajeena vs The State Of Kerala on 10 June, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 1600 OF 2020
CRIME NO.515/2019 OF CHAVAKKAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.08.2019 IN CC NO.1249 OF 2019 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, CHAVAKKAD
PETITIONERS:
1 SAJEENA,
AGED 37 YEARS
D/O.HUMSA KOYA,
RESIDING AT 18/1263, ESI ROAD,
PALLURUTHY, THOPPUMPADI, KOCHI.
2 HUMSA KOYA,
AGED 66 YEARS
RESIDING AT 18/1263, ESI ROAD,
PALLURUTHY, THOPPUMPADI, KOCHI.
BY ADV SHERLY MOL THOMAS
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
FOR THE S.I. OF POLICE, CHAVAKAD,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
KOCHI - 682 031.
2 MS.JAINA P.T
AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.MOHAMMED ALI,
THYKANDI PARAMBIL HOUSE,
HOUSE NO.V/389, KAIRALI PALUVAI,
PALUVAI POST, PAVARATTY ROAD,
PERUMBAIPADY, CHAVAKKAD,
THRISSUR - 680 522.
R1 BY SRI. RENJITH GEORGE, SENIOR PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR
R2 BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
24.05.2024, THE COURT ON 10.06.2024 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO.1600 OF 2020
2
ORDER
Dated this the 10th day of June, 2024
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to
quash Annexure 3 FIR, Charge Sheet and all further
proceedings in C.C.No.1249/2019 on the files of the Judicial
First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakad, arose out of Crime
No.515/2019 of Chavakkad Police Station, Thrissur.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the
learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant and
the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. In this matter, offences punishable under Sections
341, 323, 506 and 34 of IPC are alleged to have been
committed by the accused.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner zealously
argued to convince this Court that this is a false and foisted
case. It is also submitted that the petitioner, who is none
other than the daughter-in-law of the de facto complainant
herein obtained Annexure A2 order, issued under the
CRL.MC NO.1600 OF 2020
Protection of the Women from Domestic Violence Act from
the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kochi, and when
the defacto complainant received the prohibitory order as
Annexure A2 dated 06.08.2019, this case was registered on
18.08.2019 pertaining to an alleged occurrence on
22.07.2019. It is also submitted that even though the
defacto complainant consulted with the doctor, in
connection with the occurrence, the consultation itself is on
16.08.2019 and the wound certificate also does not suggest
any injuries or any informative in support of the
prosecution. Therefore, this false case is liable to be
quashed since no materials to justify the allegations.
5. Per contra, the defacto complainant submitted
that the petitioner suppressed her second marriage and
entered into marriage with the son of the defacto
complainant stating that she married only once before the
present marriage. Later enquiry revealed that the
petitioner was married two times before the marriage in
between son of the defacto complainant and when this fact
was detected the petitioner started to file litigations one
after another. The prosecution allegation is absolutely the
CRL.MC NO.1600 OF 2020
real incident and the grievance of the de facto complainant
and statements of witnesses and the wound certificate
would substantiate the same. Therefore, the same is not a
case for quashment.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor also supported the
argument of the learned counsel for the defacto
complainant. On perusal of the records, Annexure A2 is the
prohibitory order obtained by the petitioner in C.M.P. Nos.
509/2019 and 508/2019 as on 06.08.2019, wherein the first
respondent is the second respondent herein and the second
respondent is the daughter of the second respondent
herein. Annexure A2 order granted under Section 23(2) of
the Protection of the Women from Domestic Violence Act is
a prohibitory order restraining the respondents from
harassing the petitioner mentally or physically or
trespassing upon her house. It is discernible that this FIR
was registered after 12 days from Annexure A2 and the
occurrence disclosed in the FIS is on 22.07.2019 i.e., about
20 days before lodging FIS. Thus, it appears that soon after
the alleged occurrence, the petitioner did not file any
complaint and FIS was given and crime was registered only
CRL.MC NO.1600 OF 2020
after Annexure A2 order as borne out from Annexure A3
FIR. On perusal of the wound certificate which would
support the prosecution case, it discloses that the petitioner
met the doctor only on 16.08.2019 at 4.30 p.m., and
narrated the occurrence at 3.30 p.m. on 20.07.2019. Pain
on the right of hip and right knee are the infirmities stated
by the victim before the Doctor. The Doctor found no other
external injuries and recorded that 'vital stable'.
7. In the decision reported in [2017 KHC 6274 : AIR
2017 SC 1884 : 2017 (13) SCC 369], Vineet Kumar & Ors.
v. State of U.P & anr., the Apex Court held in paragraph
39 that inherent power given to the High Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C is with the purpose and object of
advancement of justice. In case solemn process of Court is
sought to be abused by a person with some oblique motive,
the Court has to thwart the attempt at the very threshold.
The Court cannot permit a prosecution to go on if the case
falls in one of the Categories as illustratively enumerated by
this Court in [AIR 1960 SC 866], State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal. Judicial process is a solemn proceeding which
cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of
CRL.MC NO.1600 OF 2020
operation or harassment. When there are material to
indicate that a criminal proceeding which cannot be
allowed to be converted into an instrument of operation or
harassment. When there are material to indicate that a
criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide
and proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive, the High Court will not hesitate in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the
proceeding under Category 7 as enumerated in State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which is to the following effect:
"(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due
to private and personal grudge."
Above Category 7 is clearly attracted in the facts of the
present case. Although, the High Court has noted the
judgment of the State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, but did
not advert to the relevant facts of the present case,
materials on which Final Report was submitted by the IO.
We, thus, are fully satisfied that the present is a fit case
where High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction
CRL.MC NO.1600 OF 2020
under Section 482 Cr.P.C and quashed the criminal
proceedings.
8. Similarly in another decision reported in [2023
KHC 7029 : 2023 KHC OnLine 7029 : 2023 LiveLaw (SC)
613 : 2023 KLT OnLine 175 : AIR 2023 SC 3709 : AIR
OnLine 2023 SC 602 : 2023 CriLJ 3896], Mahmood Ali v.
State of U.P, the Apex Court while considering the power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C, in paragraph 12 held that
whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking
either the inherent powers under S.482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure or extraordinary jurisdiction under
Art.226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal
proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such
proceedings are manifestly quashed essentially on the
ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or
vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a
duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely.
We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed
against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking
personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the
CRL.MC NO.1600 OF 2020
FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary
pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the
averments made in the FIR/complainant are such that they
disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged
offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court
to look into the averments made in the FIR/complainant
alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary
ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed
or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court
owes a duty to look into many other attending
circumstances emerging from the record of the case over
and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and
circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court
while exercising its jurisdiction under S.482 of the CrPC or
Art.226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to
the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account
the overall circumstances leading to the initiation /
registration of the case as well as the materials collected in
the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on
hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of
time. It is in the background of such circumstances the
CRL.MC NO.1600 OF 2020
registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby
attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or
personal grudge as alleged.
9. Therefore, the legal position is clear that
quashment of criminal proceedings can be resorted to
when the prosecution materials do not constitute
materials to attract the offence alleged to be
committed. Similarly, the Court owes a duty to look into
the other attending circumstances, in the matter of
granting of the bail over and above the averments to
see whether there are materials to indicate that a
criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala
fide and proceeding instituted maliciously with ulterior
motives. Once the said fact is established, the same is a
good reason to quash the criminal proceedings.
Having considered the genesis of the case, namely
an occurrence prior to obtaining protection order by the
petitioner, was complained of after the issuance of the
protection order, the case appears to be one registered
as a retaliatory measure. Therefore, in the facts of the
CRL.MC NO.1600 OF 2020
particular case, the prayer for quashment is liable to
succeed. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
DCS
CRL.MC NO.1600 OF 2020
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF CMP NO.508/2019
DTD.5/8/2019.
ANNEXURE 2 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 06/08/2019 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-
II,KOCHI.
ANNEXURE 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.515 DATED
18/8/2019.
ANNEXURE 4 A TRUE COPY OF WOUND CERTIFICATE
DTD.29/08/2019.
ANNEXURE 5 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT AND
CHARGE.
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE R2(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE IN
CMP.NO.509/2019 IN CMP 508/2019 ISSUED
TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT/ DE FACTO
COMPLAINANT DTD 22.10.2019
ANNEXURE R2(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN
CR.NO.1702/2019 OF THE PALLURUTHY KASABA
POLICE STATION DTD 04.11.2019
ANNEXURE R2(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN CRL.MC.NO.8352/2022 DTD
21.11.2022
