Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
Nishin Hussain, D/o. Mohammed Hussain M.I. - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By The Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Kerala and Anr. – Respondents
Crl.MC No. 7541 Of 2023, Crl.MC No. 10135 Of 2023
Decided On : 12-08-2024
QUASHMENT - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Cr.P.C Section 482, IPC Sections 498A, 354A - The court discussed the provisions of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, which allows for quashing of FIRs and proceedings if no prima facie case is made out. It interpreted Section 354A of the IPC, emphasizing that it applies only to men, thus excluding the female accused from liability under this section. The court also examined Section 498A of the IPC, noting that specific allegations of cruelty must be present to sustain charges. The court ultimately quashed the proceedings under Section 354A but allowed the trial under Section 498A to proceed, highlighting the necessity of specific allegations in such cases.
Fact of the Case:
The 3rd and 4th accused in a criminal case sought to quash the FIR and final report against them, arguing that the allegations were vague and did not specifically implicate them in the offences under Sections 498A and 354A of the IPC. The prosecution alleged that the accused subjected the complainant to cruelty and molestation, demanding money and property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while there were specific allegations against the 3rd accused that could sustain a trial under Section 498A, the allegations under Section 354A were not applicable as the accused were women, and the section specifically pertains to acts committed by men.
Issues: Whether the allegations against the 3rd and 4th accused were sufficient to sustain charges under Sections 498A and 354A of the IPC, and whether the proceedings should be quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for an offence under Section 354A to be made out, the accused must be male, as the section explicitly refers to 'a man'. The court also reiterated that general and sweeping allegations without specific instances do not suffice to establish a case under Section 498A.
Final Decision: The court allowed the quashment of proceedings under Section 354A of the IPC but disallowed the quashment of proceedings under Section 498A, allowing the trial to continue on those charges.
ORDER :
(A. Badharudeen, J.) :
The 3rd accused in C.C.No.3010/2021, on the files of Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Nedumangad, has filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.P.C’ for short) seeking the following reliefs:
(b) Pass such any other order, direction or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.”
2. Crl.M.C.No.7541/2023 is at the instance of the 4th accused in the above crime. She also seeks quashment of the above proceedings.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused materials.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners/3rd and 4th accused argued that there are no allegations specifically made out as against the petitioners, who are the 3rd and 4th accused in the above case, to attract offence punishable under Sections 498A, 354A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He also submitted that the 3rd and 4th accused/petitioners herein are ladies and therefore no offence under Section 354A of the IPC would attract against them. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners further that only omnibus allegations are raised against the petitioners in as much as the other offences are concerned and the same are insufficient to proceed against the petitioners. He has placed decisions of the Apex Court reported in [MANU/SC/0163/2022], Mahkashan Kausar & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. He also argued that in order to lodge a proper complaint, mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not be all and end of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence and decision of the Apex Court reported in [MANU/SC/1733/2009], Neelu Chopra & Ors. v. Bharti, has been placed in this regard. Misuse of provisions under Section 498A to rope in distinct relatives of the husband in crimes also highlighted with the aid of the decision in [2018 KHC 6625 : 2018(2) KLD 766 : 2018 (1)) SCALE 112 : AIR 2018 SC 4009 : 2018 (14) SCC 452], Subba Rao K. & Ors. v. State of Telangana rep. By its Secretary. Relying on the decision in in [MANU/DE/0372/2019], Anju v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. dated 04.02.2019, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that general and omnibus allegations, without specifying about the date, time or place of the alleged overt acts, are not sufficient to proceed with trial. Accordingly, he prayed for quashment.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the quashment sought for pointing out the specific allegations raised against the petitioners which would disclose, prima facie, materials to attract the offences alleged by the prosecution.
6. The prosecution allegation herein is that the 1st accused, the husband of the defacto complainant, the 2nd accused – the father of the 1st accused, the 3rd accused – the mother of the 1st accused and the 4th accused - the sister of the 1st accused, subjected the defacto complainant, who did not belong to their community, to cruelty and molestation, by demanding money and flat. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of the above offences.
7. In view of the rival arguments, I have perused the F.I.S to find as to whether the prosecution case, prima facie, made out against the petitioners.
8. The specific allegation is that while the defacto complainant was staying along with the accused in continuation of registered marriage on 08.02.2013 and a religious marriage on 31.03.2013, the accused herein put her to starvation and detained in a room dema
Section 354A of the IPC does not apply to women, and specific allegations are required to sustain charges under Section 498A, emphasizing the need for detailed accusations rather than general claims.
The court established that allegations of sexual offences between spouses are governed by Section 375 and its exceptions, and that vague allegations do not suffice to constitute cruelty under Section....
The court upheld that prima facie evidence of cruelty and misappropriation exists, warranting trial despite questions regarding the legality of the marriage.
Vague and omnibus allegations are insufficient to establish an offence under Section 498A of the IPC; specific allegations must be present to avoid misuse of legal provisions.
Proceedings against relatives in dowry cases must allege specific conduct; general allegations fail to establish a prima facie case.
The court found prima facie evidence to sustain charges under Section 498A IPC, while allegations under Section 420 IPC were not substantiated.
The court ruled that prima facie allegations of sexual harassment were established, thus quashment of proceedings was not permissible.
Specific allegations are necessary to proceed with trial under Section 498A of IPC, and vague and omnibus allegations should not be allowed to initiate criminal proceedings.
The court established that vague allegations in dowry harassment cases do not warrant criminal proceedings against relatives, emphasizing the need for specific accusations.
Section 354A of the IPC is gender-specific and cannot be applied to female accused, necessitating quashing of charges lacking specific allegations.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
