Vimala Viswambharan vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 30902 Ker

Kerala High Court

Vimala Viswambharan vs State Of Kerala on 23 October, 2024

                                           2024:KER:79303
CRL.MC NO. 805 OF 2024
                              1

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                          PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

  WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2024/1ST KARTHIKA,

                             1946

                  CRL.MC NO. 805 OF 2024

        CC NO.657 OF 2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

                     CLASS -I, KOLLAM

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.2 & 3:

    1     VIMALA VISWAMBHARAN
          AGED 72 YEARS
          W/O VISWAMBHARAN, MUTTTAMBALAM,
          KADAPPAKKADA NAGAR-95,
          KADAPPAKKADA P O, KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE,
          KOLLAM, PIN - 691008

    2     VISWAMBHARAN
          AGED 77 YEARS
          MUTTTAMBALAM, KADAPPAKKADA NAGAR-95,
          KADAPPAKKADA P O, KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE,
          KOLLAM, PIN - 691008


          BY ADVS.
          M.T.SURESHKUMAR
          MANJUSHA K
          SREELAKSHMI SABU


RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
          HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031

    2     SREEVALSA
          AGED 34 YEARS
          D/O RAGHAVAN, VANAJA VILAS,
                                            2024:KER:79303
CRL.MC NO. 805 OF 2024
                           2

         MYTHRI NAGAR 48,
         KALLUMTHAZHAM P O, KILIKOLLOOR,
         KOLLAM, PIN - 691004


         BY ADVS.
         PRATHEESH.P
         ANJANA KANNATH(K/939/2014)
         MARIYA JOSE(K/004011/2023)

         SRI. M P PRASANTH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING       COME UP    FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.10.2024, THE COURT ON      THE SAME   DAY
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                    2024:KER:79303
CRL.MC NO. 805 OF 2024
                                  3

                            ORDER

Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2024

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed

under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to

quash Annexure A2 final report in Crime No.1452/2014 of

Kilikolloor police station and all further proceedings in

C.C.No.657/2015 on the files of the Judicial First Class

Magistrate Court-I, Kollam. The petitioners herein are

accused Nos. 2 and 3 in the above case.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the

petitioners, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant

and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail.

3. In this matter, the prosecution alleges

commission of offence punishable under Section 498A of the

Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act by accused Nos.1 to 4. The prosecution

allegation is that the first accused, who married the defacto

complainant in the year 2007, started to reside along with the 2024:KER:79303 CRL.MC NO. 805 OF 2024

defacto complainant at the matrimonial home and during her

stay, accused Nos. 1, to 4, subjected her to cruelty and

thereby committed the above offences.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners,

while seeking quashment of the proceedings against the

petitioners, who are accused Nos.2 and 3, the parents of the

first accused, vehemently argued that going by the

allegations in the complaint and the prosecution records, no

specific allegations were raised against the petitioners herein

so as to proceed against them on the premise of committing

the offences alleged.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners

placed a latest decision of the Apex Court in Achin Gupta v.

State of Haryana, reported in 2024 KHC OnLine 6257 :

2024 (3) KHC SN 24 : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 343 : 2024 KLT

OnLine 1481, to canvass the point that the courts must

appreciate the materials and all quarrels must be weighed

from that point of view in determining what constitutes cruelty 2024:KER:79303 CRL.MC NO. 805 OF 2024

in each particular case. A very technical and hyper sensitive

approach would prove to be disastrous for the very intend of

the marriage. Paragraph 25 of the decision has been referred

to contend that some general and sweeping allegations

without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal

conduct, is nothing but abuse of the process of the court. In

paragraph 25, the Apex Court held as under:

"If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of the process of the court. The court owes a duty to subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial dispute."

2024:KER:79303 CRL.MC NO. 805 OF 2024

6. The learned counsel for the defacto

complainant submitted that invariably, general allegations

seen raised. According to the learned counsel for the

petitioners, accused Nos.2 and 3 demanded Rs.10,00,000/-

more as dowry. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the final

report as canvassed by the learned counsel for the

petitioners must fail.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor also

reiterated the argument of the learned counsel for the defacto

complainant while opposing quashment as sought for.

8. In order to address the rival contentions,

reference to Section 498A of IPC is necessary, which reads

as under:

"Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty - Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

2024:KER:79303 CRL.MC NO. 805 OF 2024

Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "cruelty means"--

(a) anywilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."

9. Going by the definition, subjecting a woman

to cruelty by husband or relative of the husband likely to drive

the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or

danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of

the woman or harassment of the woman where such

harassment is with a view to coerce her or any person

related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property

or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any

person related to her to meet such demand is an offence. In

the decision in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana's case 2024:KER:79303 CRL.MC NO. 805 OF 2024

(supra), the Apex Court considered earlier decisions of the

Apex Court dealing with Section 498A of IPC and it was held

that general and sweeping allegations without mentioning

specific instances of criminal conduct is an abuse of the

process of court and in such cases the courts owe a duty to

subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough

scrutiny to find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of

truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with

the sole object of involving some individuals in a criminal

charge, more particularly, when a prosecution arises from a

matrimonial dispute. This Court, in the decision in Shymala

Bhasker V. State of Kerala and Another, reported in

MANU/KE/1770/2024 : 2024 KHC Online 429, reiterated the

same principles.

10. Coming to the crux of this matter, the

allegation against accused Nos.2 and 3/the parents of the 1st

accused is that when the 1st accused beaten the defacto 2024:KER:79303 CRL.MC NO. 805 OF 2024

complainant, the parents became spectators and they did not

interfere to stop the same. The further allegation is that the

husband/1st accused subjected the defacto complainant to

cruelty continuously, both physically and mentally. Apart from

that, there is an allegation against the parents that the

parents of the 1st accused/accused Nos.2 and 3 also ill-

treated the defacto complainant demanding dowry. But the

said statements appear to be hearsay, since it was stated

that those imputations were conveyed by the defacto

complainant. Apart from that, no serious or specific overt acts

alleged against accused Nos.2 and 3, how they ill-treated or

persecuted the defacto complainant.

11. Though it is argued by the learned counsel

for the defacto complainant and the learned Public

Prosecutor that the statements attributing abetment against

accused Nos.2 and 3 available from the prosecution records,

the matter would require trial and this is not a case of 2024:KER:79303 CRL.MC NO. 805 OF 2024

quashment, it could be seen that only omnibus allegations

raised against the petitioners to the effect that the parents

also abetted the crime, without narrating any specific overt

acts, with certainty how the parents ill-treated or persecuted

the defacto complainant.

12. It is noticed that in matrimonial disputes, in

order to wreak vengeance against the husband and relatives

of the husband, certain wives initiate criminal proceedings on

the strength of vague and omnibus allegations against the

parents, sisters, brothers and other relatives of the husband

with ulterior motive to put them under the veil of prosecution

involving non-bailable offences and to face the ordeal of

criminal prosecution and trial by the parents, sisters, brothers

and other relatives of the husband, so as to malign and

defame their image in the society. In such cases, it is the

duty of the court to analyse materials available when

quashment is sought whether the allegations specifically

state anything dealt under Section 498A so as to prosecute 2024:KER:79303 CRL.MC NO. 805 OF 2024

the accused for the said offences, by subjecting themselves

for trial. The cases where no specific allegations to go for

trial, prima facie, such cases shall be quashed by the High

Court by invoking power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. At

the same time, when specific allegations pointing out the

overt acts which would attract the offence under Section

498A could be seen, prima facie, from the prosecution case,

such cases shall not be quashed.

13. In the instant case, as I have already

pointed out, only general and sweeping allegations, without

bringing on record any specific instance of cruelty at the

instance of the petitioners herein/accused Nos.2 and 3, are

the substratum on which the mother, father and brother of the

1st accused got arraigned as accused Nos.2 and 3

respectively. Therefore, in the facts of the instant case

discussed, quashment as sought by the petitioners is liable

to be allowed.

2024:KER:79303 CRL.MC NO. 805 OF 2024

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Annexure A2

final report in Crime No.1452/2014 of Kilikolloor police station

and all further proceedings in C.C.No.657/2015 on the files of

the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kollam, as against

the petitioners stand quashed.

Registry shall forward a copy of this order to the

jurisdictional court forthwith, for information and further

action.

Sd/-

A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE nkr 2024:KER:79303 CRL.MC NO. 805 OF 2024

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR AND THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT,WHICH WAS FORWARDED FOR INVESTIGATION BY THE POLICE DATED 10.9.2014

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 25-1-2015 FILED IN CRIME NO. 1452 OF 2014 OF KILIKOLLOOR POLICE STATION PENDING AS CC NO. 657 OF 2015 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-1, KOLLAM

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17-1-2020 IN MC NO. 223 OF 2014 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-2, KOLLAM

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26-10-2021 IN CRL. APPEAL NO. 30 OF 2020 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-3, KOLLAM

ANNEXURE A5 COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE OF THE 1ST PETITIONER, ISSUED FROM THE COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE, DATED 6-1-2024

ANNEXURE A6 COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE OF THE 2ND PETITIONER, ISSUED FROM THE COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE, DATED 6-1-2024

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES : NIL