Kerala High Court
Rajesh Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 19 June, 2025
2025:KER:43915
CRL.MC NO. 2550 OF 2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 29TH JYAISHTA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 2550 OF 2024
CRIME NO.1038/2020 OF Piravam Police Station, Ernakulam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.99 OF 2021
OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PIRAVOM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
RAJESH KUMAR
AGED 41 YEARS
PACHEERY HOUSE, KUMARAMPOOTHUR POST, MANNARKADU,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678583
BY ADVS.
SHRI.E.B.THAJUDDEEN
SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED ASLAM
SHRI. SARATH SASI
SHRI.ARTHUR B. GEORGE
SHRI.MIDHUN MOHAN
SHRI.IRSHAD V.P.
RESPONDENT/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 BIBLY S LAKSHMI
AGED 35 YEARS
D/O SUKUMARAN ANJAPPARA HOUSE PIRAVAM POST,
PIRAVAM ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686664
2025:KER:43915
CRL.MC NO. 2550 OF 2024 2
BY ADVS.
SRI.ALIAS M.CHERIAN
SRI.K.M.RAPHY
SHRI.BRISTO S PARIYARAM
SMT.AMEERA JOJO
SMT.MINNU DARWIN
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT PUSHPALATHA M.K., SR PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 19.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:43915
CRL.MC NO. 2550 OF 2024 3
ORDER
The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.99/2021 on the files
of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Piravom. The offences
alleged against him are under Sections 498A and 506 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner, who married
the defacto complainant on 22.09.2016, has been subjecting her to
severe physical and mental cruelty, demanding more dowry. It is
stated that the defacto complainant had to suffer severe physical and
mental tortures, on various dates like 25.04.2018, 08.06.2018,
17.07.2018 and 04..08.2018, from the petitioner who wanted her to
pay Rs.5 lakhs as part of dowry. When the defacto complainant
refused, the petitioner is alleged to have stomped upon her
abdomen, and fisted on her face, threatening that she would be done
away with.
3. The SHO of Police, Piravom Police Station, has filed
Final Report against the petitioner, alleging the offences under the
aforesaid sections.
4. In the present petition, the petitioner would
contend that he is totally innocent, and that he has been falsely
implicated in this case. It is further stated that none of the offences
alleged in the case are attracted in the facts and circumstances
2025:KER:43915
stated in the Final Report.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
learned counsel for the defacto complainant and the learned Public
Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
6. It could be seen from the First Information
Statement given by the defacto complainant that there are precise
allegations of physical and mental torture inflicted by the petitioner
upon the defacto complainant, demanding more dowry. It is stated
that she was subjected to inhuman physical and mental torture on
various dates like 25.04.2018, 08.06.2018, 17.07.2018 and
04.08.2018. The statement of the defacto complainant in the above
regard is supported by the statements of CW2 and CW4, who are said
to have been witnesses to many of such incidents. The learned
counsel for the petitioner, by relying on Annexure A2 FIR, submitted
that the present crime is a counter-blast to the aforesaid crime
initiated by the father of the petitioner in connection with the
physical assault upon him on 29.02.2020 by CW3 (brother of the
defacto complainant) and two other identifiable persons. Thus, it is
stated that the present case has been foisted to wreck vengeance
upon the petitioner, due to the registration of the aforesaid crime
against the brother of the defacto complainant. Another argument
advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that none of the
allegations of cruelty, which are raised in the present case, have
2025:KER:43915
been put forward in the case instituted by the petitioner before the
Family Court for divorce. Thus, it is stated that the failure of the
defacto complainant to state those aspects in the case instituted
before the Family Court, would show that there is absolutely no
bonafides in the present case.
7. In answer to the above argument, the learned
counsel for the defacto complainant submitted that the petitioner
herein had assaulted the mother of the defacto complainant on
26.02.2019, and that in the above case, he has been convicted and
sentenced by the Magistrate. Thus, it is stated that Annexure A2 FIR
is in fact, a case foisted by the petitioner and his father, as a counter-
blast to the above assault mounted upon the mother-in-law of the
petitioner.
8. As regards the contention that in the proceedings
before the Family Court, the allegations of cruelty stated in this case
are not mentioned, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the
defacto complainant that it is not a matter to be looked into, while
dealing with the scope of quashing the present case.
9. The learned Public Prosecutor also supported the
argument of the learned counsel for the defacto complainant and
submitted that the Final Report and accompanying records, clearly
bring home the offences alleged against the petitioner.
10. The contention of the petitioner that the present
2025:KER:43915
case has been foisted as a counter-blast to Annexure A2, is prima
facie unsustainable in view of the fact that the petitioner herein, had
been convicted and sentenced in connection with an incident of
physically assaulting the mother of the defacto complainant on
26.02.2019.
11. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for
the defacto complainant, it has to be seriously doubted that
Annexure A2 FIR is in fact, a counter-blast to the above case. As
regards the argument that the allegation of cruelty raised in this case
are not mentioned in the petition filed before the Family Court, it has
to be stated that the above aspect is not at all relevant for deciding
the present issue, as to the scope of quashing the proceedings in
C.C.No.99/2021 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court, Piravam.
12. The petitioner could very well argue before the
Family Court that the failure of the defacto complainant to raise the
allegations, wherein she had put forward in the present case, itself
would show that there are no valid grounds for divorce.
13. At any rate, it is not a matter to be looked into in
the present case, wherein the petitioner seeks the quashment of
criminal case pending against him.
14. As matter stands now, it is apparent from the
prosecution records that there are sufficient materials garnered by
2025:KER:43915
the Investigating Agency, to bring home the offences alleged against
the petitioner. It is for the learned Magistrate to evaluate the
evidence, and to decide whether the offence is actually brought out.
15. It is not possible for this Court to invoke the
inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to terminate the
prosecution proceedings, in a case like this, where prima facie the
materials relied on by the prosecution would establish the charge
levelled against the accused. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioner
to quash the proceedings, is unsustainable.
In the result, the petition is hereby dismissed.
sd/
G.GIRISH
JUDGE
2025:KER:43915
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT DATED
23/11/2020 ALONG WITH THE FIR
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 02/03/2020
IN CRIME NO 412 OF 2020 IN THE FILES OF
MOOVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION
