[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Saleena P K vs State Of Kerala on 31 January, 2026
CRL.MC NO. 10543 OF 2025
1
2026:KER:8371
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
SATURDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 11TH MAGHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 10543 OF 2025
CRIME NO.411/2025 OF Palarivattom Police Station, Ernakulam
PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:
SALEENA P K
AGED 44 YEARS
PUNNASSERIL HOUSE, PATTANAKKAD P O,
CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688531
BY ADVS.
SHRI.ARJUN SASI
SHRI.NAVEEN THOMAS
SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM
RESPONDENTS/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, COCHIN., PIN - 682031
2 DHANY C M
AGED 42 YEARS
4/317, CHATHAMPARAMBIL HOUSE,
NOW RESIDING AT 4/317/A, THAYIKKATTUKARA P O,
ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683106
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. C.SEENA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 31.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 10543 OF 2025
2
2026:KER:8371
ORDER
Dated this the 31st day of January, 2026
The 2nd accused in Crime No. 411 of 2025 of the Palarivattom
police station filed this petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, praying for
quashing all further proceedings against her. The offences alleged against
the petitioner and the co-accused are under Section 498A of the IPC and
Sections 115(2), 118(1) and 3(5) of the BNS.
2. The prosecution case is that the 1 st accused, being the
husband of the defacto complainant, subjected her to cruelty both
physically and mentally on the ground of dowry and that on 05.06.2025 at
about 8.00 p.m., the accused persons jointly assaulted the defacto
complainant when she questioned about the illicit relationship between the
accused persons.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
entire dispute between the 1st accused and the defacto complainant were
settled and accordingly as per order of this Court in Crl.M.C No. 10235 of
2025 dated 15.12.2025, this Court quashed the proceedings as against the
1st accused. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for quashing the
proceedings against the petitioner/2nd accused also.
CRL.MC NO. 10543 OF 2025
2026:KER:8371
4. The petition was strongly opposed by the learned
counsel for the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant as well as by the
learned Public Prosecutor.
5. According to the learned counsel for the 2 nd
respondent/defacto complainant, the dispute between the 1 st accused and
the defacto complainant alone was settled and that the dispute as against
the petitioner herein was not settled and therefore he prayed for dismissing
the Crl.M.C.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prashant Prakash Ratnaparki v.
State of Maharashtra [2025 KHC OnLine 7619], would argue that the
factual matrix forming the basis of all the offences involved in this case is
inseparable and arises from a single transaction and since the case as
against the 1st accused was already quashed, the case against the 2 nd
accused cannot be proceeded with.
7. In the above decision, in paragraph 13, the Apex Court
held as follows:
"13. Once the High Court exercised its inherent
jurisdiction to quash the FIR with respect to the offences
punishable under S.115(2), S.351(2), S.351(3), and S.352 of
CRL.MC NO. 10543 OF 2025
2026:KER:8371
the BNS (S.326, S.506 and S.504 of the IPC), on the basis of
the voluntary affidavit of respondent No.2 - complainant,
there was no justification whatsoever to sustain the same FIR
for the offence punishable under S.310(2) of the BNS (S.395
of the IPC). The factual matrix forming the basis of all the
offences is inseparable and arises from a single transaction.
The compromise that was accepted as genuine and sufficient
to quash the other offences equally dilutes the foundation of
the charge of dacoity, which rests on the same set of
allegations and circumstances."
8. In the instant case, in the introductory portion of the FI
statement it is alleged that on 05.06.2025 at about 8.00 p.m., when she
went to the office room of the 1st accused, she saw the accused persons in a
comprising position and when she questioned the above conduct of the 1st
accused, he kicked her on her abdomen and on the back side of her body
and the 2nd accused caught hold on her hair and beat her using her
footwear. Though in the introductory portion of the FI statement such an
allegation is raised, in the body portion of the FI statement there is only a
general allegation that both the accused persons together assaulted her.
9. In Annexure A3 affidavit filed by the defacto
complainant in Crl.M.C No. 10235 of 2025, it is stated that :
CRL.MC NO. 10543 OF 2025
2026:KER:8371
" Petitioner/Accused No.1 is not involved in the incident and his
name happened to be included due to mistake of identity and
mistake of facts. It is further submitted that petitioner is my
husband and now the entire dispute between my husband and me
settled and we filed joint divorce petition before the Honourable
Family Court, Aluva."
10. In paragraph 4 of the Annexure A3, she stated that she
has no objection in quashing Annexure A1 FIR in Crime No. 411 of 2025
of the Palarivattom police station as against the 1st accused. It was
accordingly that this Court quashed the case as against the 1st accused.
11. In the above affidavit, the petitioner states that the 1st
accused was not involved in the commission of the offence and that his
name was included due to mistake of identity and mistake of facts. In the
FI statement, the specific case is that the petitioner along with the 1st
accused voluntarily caused hurt to her. Since in Annexure A3 affidavit she
categorically swears that the 1 st accused was not involved in the incident
and that his name happened to be included due to mistake of identity and
mistake of facts, it is to be presumed that her averments in the FI statement
are false and unbelievable, as there is no scope for mentioning the name of
her husband in the FI statement due to any mistake of identity or mistake of
CRL.MC NO. 10543 OF 2025
2026:KER:8371
fact. In the above circumstances, the allegation raised by her against the
petitioner herein also cannot be believed. Therefore, no useful purpose will
be served in continuing the proceedings against the petitioner alone, and as
such this Crl.M.C is liable to be allowed.
In the result, this Crl.M.C allowed. All further proceedings
against the 2nd accused in Crime No. 411 of 2025 of the Palarivattom police
station, is quashed.
Sd/-
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR,
JUDGE
NJ
CRL.MC NO. 10543 OF 2025
2026:KER:8371
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 10543 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIS AND FIR IN
CRIME NO.411/2025 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE
STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE WITNESS LIST FILED
BY THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND BEFORE THE
FAMILY COURT ALUVA IN OP NO.686/2021
CITING 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN AS 2ND
WITNESS
Annexure A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWEAR BY
THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/2ND RESPONDENT
BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN CRL.MC
