High Court of Kerala
P. BHAVADASAN, J.
Jose Thettayil
Versus
Station House Officer, Aluva East Police Station represented by the Public Prosecutor High Court of Kerala & Others
Crl.MC.No. 2737 of 2013
Decided On : 01-08-2013
1. Astounding, incredible and extraordinary allegations in a complaint, unique in nature and character, probably first of its kind in judicial history of the Nation, and may also be the last, resulted in registration of Crime No.2141 of 2013 of Aluva East Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as I.P.C.). The petitioner herein is the first accused in the said case and his son is the second accused. The first accused is a sitting MLA and a prominent person enjoying wide popularity among the people of his constituency.
2. The short case put forward by the petitioner is that even assuming that all the allegations in the complaint are taken as true, they do not constitute the ingredients necessary to attract Section 376 of I.P.C. and if that be so, no offence is made out and the complaint and the FIR produced as Annexures A1 and A2 are only to be quashed. In other words, the petitioner wishes to abort the proceedings at the threshold.
3. In the light of the said fact, it becomes necessary before going into the various aspects to refer to the allegations in the complaint in detail.
4. The complaint is produced as Annexure A1. It is in vernacular language. It is addressed to the Superintendent of Police (Rural), Aluva. It is undated. According to the complainant, she has studied upto MCA. She says that her father owns a business in timber and runs a mill under the name and style St.Augustine Packing Industries and Saw Mill in Manjapra Village. The business commenced from 1.1.2007. Shri. Jose Thettayil, MLA from Angamaly, the petitioner herein, was invited for the inauguration of the Mill. The complainant too had attended the function. According to the complainant, accepting the invitation, the MLA had come to attend the function. Likewise, many other persons, including the Panchayat President, also attended the function. At the function, the complainant was introduced to the petitioner for the first time. The residential house, where the complainant resides, and the Saw Mill are situate in the same compound. The complainant used to go to the business concern to help her father. On the next day of the inauguration, the MLA had made a call to the Saw Mill office. On hearing the sound of the complainant, he asked whether it was Noby, the daughter of Augustine. The complainant replied in the affirmative and she says that her mobile number was sought for. She replied that currently she did not have a mobile connection. Later on, she, for business purposes, took a mobile connection with Idea. About four months thereafter, the MLA came to the office and stated that he was on his way for inauguration at some other place. The complainant had her mobile phone with her and when the number was sought for by the MLA, it was given to him. According to the complainant, thereafter, the MLA used to phone her occasionally. From the beginning of 2010, the MLA began to call her frequently. Whenever he called, he enquired about the welfare of the complainant and about the affairs of the business that is being carried on by her father. One day, it is claimed that, she asked the MLA why he was calling her so often. He then said to have told her that his son was studying for MBA in Ireland and he desired that his son marries the complainant when he returns from Ireland. The MLA indicated that he was planning to meet her father and talk about the marriage. Thereafter, he called the complainant frequently. While so, in the beginning of 2012, the son of the petitioner returned to his native place and for the next few days she was called over phone by the MLA and she was informed that his son had returned home and asked the complainant to come over to Anns India Exim Private Limited at Cheriyavappilaserry. The complainant went there. There apart from him, his eldest son Adarsh, two Directors, Cheriyan and Smiley, and other staff were present. Then the petitioner
GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust v. India Infoline Ltd. ((2013) 4 SCC 505)
Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre ((1988) 1 SCC 692)
Punjab National Bank v. Surendra Prasad Sinha (AIR 1992 SC 1815)
Muksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat ((2008) 5 SCC 668)
Sathish Mehra v. State of N.C.T. Of Delhi (AIR 2013 SC 506)
R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866)
Inder Mohan Goswami and Another v. State of Uttaranchal and Others
State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy (1977) 2 SCC 699)
Chandrapal Singh and Others v. Maharaj Singh a (1982) 1 SCC 466)
Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre (1988) 1 SCC 692)
Janata Dal v. H. S. Chowdhary (1992) 4 SCC 305)
G. Sagar Suri v. State of UP (2000) 2 SCC 636 )
Roy V. D. v. State of Kerala (2000) 8 SCC 590)
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque (2005) 1 SCC 122)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.