Kerala High Court
Aparna Sreejith @ Aparna P.K vs Aishwarya Sreejith on 5 September, 2024
2024:KER:67596
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 14TH BHADRA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 6887 OF 2019
IN C.C. NO.254 OF 2019 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE-I, KANNUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
APARNA SREEJITH @ APARNA P.K.
AGED 34 YEARS
D/O. PURUSHOTHAMAN, GRACE VILLAG, NEAR KURUVAN VAITHIYAR
SHOP, PARK ROAD, MUNDAYAD, KANNUR
BY ADVS.
T.G.RAJENDRAN
SRI.T.R.TARIN
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:
1 AISHWARYA SREEJITH
AGED 33 YEARS
D/O. PAVITHRAN K., NALAM VEEDU, PALLIKUNNU P. O.,
KANNUR - 670004.
2 SREEJITH P. K.
S/O. SREEDHARAN P. K., SREESAILAM, P. V. SWAMI ROAD,
CHALAPPURAM, KOZHIKODE - 673002.
3 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM - 682031.
BY ADVS.
K.P.SREEKUMAR
P.M.SATHEESH(K/1066/2001)
PP M P PRASNTH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.09.2024,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:67596
Crl.M.C. No. 6887 of 2019
2
ORDER
Dated this the 5th day of September, 2024
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
to quash C.C. No.254/2019 on the files of the Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur. The petitioner herein is the
2nd accused in the above case.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel
appearing for the 1st respondent/defacto complainant.
Perused the relevant materials available.
3. In this matter, the complainant, Smt.Aishwarya
Sreejith lodged a complaint (copy of the same is produced
as Annexure-I) before the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court, Kannur, alleging that the 1 st accused, the husband of
the defacto complainant, who married her on 09.02.2015 at
Sreevalsam, Thottada P.O., Kannur, during subsistence of
the said marriage, married the 2nd accused on 03.09.2018 at
SreeKrishna Temple, Guruvayoor and thereby the accused
committed offences punishable under Section 494 read with
2024:KER:67596
109 of IPC. The court below took cognizance of the matter,
after enquiry. Now, the 2nd accused/the petitioner herein
assails the cognizance and issuance of summons, mainly
contending that the 1st accused married the 2nd accused
after dissolving the marriage between the 1st accused and
the complainant.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that, the marriage between the 1 st accused and the
complainant dissolved before 03.09.2018 and no marriage
subsisted at the time of marriage between the 1 st and 2nd
accused. Therefore, no offence under Section 494 of IPC
would attract against the 2 nd accused. The learned counsel
for the petitioner further argued that, the 2 nd
accused/petitioner herein was not aware of the marriage
between the complainant and the 1 st accused. Therefore,
the petitioner is not liable to be prosecuted for offence
under Section 494 of IPC and the entire proceedings as
against the 2nd accused is liable to be quashed.
5. Resisting this contention, the learned counsel for
the defacto complainant/1st respondent placed the copy of
order in Original Petition No.32/2019 dated 18.05.2019, to
2024:KER:67596
contend that the contention raised by the learned counsel
for the petitioner that the marriage between the 1 st accused
and the defacto complainant was dissolved before
solemnization of the marriage between the 1st and 2nd
accused on 03.09.2018 is absolutely incorrect. In this
connection, he has placed copy of marriage certificate
issued by the Registrar of Marriage, Edakkad Grama
Panchayat, Kannur, showing the marriage between the
complainant and the 1st accused on 09.02.2015 at
Sreevalsam, Thottada P.O., Kannur and the marriage
certificate showing marriage between the 1st and 2nd
accused on 03.09.2018 at Sree Krishna Temple, Guruvayur.
The learned counsel for the defacto complainant given
heavy reliance on the judgment in Original Petition
No.32/2019 dated 18.05.2019 to contend that, at the time
when the 1st accused married the 2nd accused on
03.09.2018, the divorce petition filed by the 1st accused
before the Family Court, Kannur, to dissolve the marriage in
between the 1st accused and the complainant had been
pending and the same was dismissed for default only on
18.05.2019.
2024:KER:67596
6. Going by the documents perused and discussed,
it is prima facie, discernible that the 1 st accused married the
2nd accused, while the marriage between the complainant
and the 1st accused has been subsisting and so far no
divorce effected. Further, the divorce petition filed by the 1 st
accused as O.P. No.32/2019 was dismissed for default on
18.05.2019, after the 2nd marriage. Thus, prima facie,
offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC is made out as
against the 2nd accused/petitioner herein. Though, it is
argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner is not aware of the marriage between the 1 st
accused and the defacto complainant, the same is a matter
of evidence and this Court cannot consider the said
submission alone as the basis to disbelieve the prosecution
case, at the pre-trial stage.
7. In view of the above, the quashment sought for is
liable to fail. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed.
Registry shall forward a copy of this order to the
trial court for information and further steps.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
SK JUDGE
2024:KER:67596
PETITIONER ANNEXURES :
ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 9.1.2018.
ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS DATED 8.5.2019 ISSUED
TO THE PETITIONER.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES : NIL
