Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Ker) 975

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
Shammil – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
Crl.MC No. 1041 of 2015
Decided on : 29-08-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : ADVS. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.K.S.MIZVER SMT.K.M.RAMYA SRI.P.K.RAKESH KUMAR SRI.THOMAS CHAZHUKKARAN SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR
For the Respondent: ADV M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN, SRI.RENJITH.T.R, SR.PP

IMPORTANT POINT
Findings in domestic violence proceedings do not bar criminal prosecution under Section 498A IPC, as both serve different legal purposes.

Headnote:
Prosecution - Section 498A IPC - Section 12, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - The court held that findings in domestic violence proceedings do not bar prosecution under Section 498A IPC, as both serve different legal remedies.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, accused under Section 498A IPC, contended that a prior finding of no domestic violence in a proceeding under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act should quash the criminal prosecution against him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the findings in the domestic violence case do not prevent the continuation of the prosecution under Section 498A IPC, as both legal frameworks address different aspects of domestic issues.
Issues: Whether a finding of no domestic violence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act can quash a prosecution under Section 498A IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and Section 498A IPC are distinct, and findings in one do not affect the other.
Result: The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed.

ORDER :

The point to be decided in this case is that, whether a prosecution initiated under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code can be quashed because there is a finding by the Court in a proceeding initiated under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'Act 2005') to the effect that there is no domestic violence as defined in the Act 2005.

2. The brief facts in this case can be narrated first: Petitioner is an accused in C.C.No.4071/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakudy. The above case is charge-sheeted against the petitioner alleging the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. The prosecution case is that the accused married CW1 on 03.09.2000 in accordance with the Hindu Religious customs and after the marriage, when the accused and CW1 were residing in the house of the accused, 30 sovereigns of gold given to CW1 was misappropriated by the accused. It is also the prosecution case that the accused said that, to live with CW1, 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments is insufficient and he demanded 5 lakh rupees and another 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments. It is also the case of the prosecution that the accused told CW1 that he married her because of the compulsion from his family even though he is not interested in the marriage. The crux of the allegation is that, the petitioner without maintaining CW1 and the children mentally ill-treated her. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the offence.

3. It is submitted that, there are two children in the matrimonial relationship between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. The petitioner is a B.Tech holder and the 3rd respondent is a Diploma holder. It is the case of the petitioner that he wants the company of the 3rd respondent, who is the defacto complainant herein. But the 3rd respondent is not interested in continuing the relationship. It is also the case of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent preferred complaints before different authorities without any basis. It is submitted that, on 20.01.2011 she preferred O.P. No. 135/2011 before the Family Court, Thrissur under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce alleging that, after solemnization of the marriage, she was treated with cruelty. She also filed O.P.No.139/2011 for return of 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its equal value. It is further submitted that, on 08.02.2011, the petitioner filed M.C.No.15/2011 under Section 12 of the Act 2005 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakudy alleging dowry harassment by the petitioner and his parents, not to alienate the landed property and the house owned by the petitioner, and to give maintenance to her children. It is submitted by the petitioner that, on 27.03.2011, the 3rd respondent on her own accord, vacated the parental house of the petitioner with children and all her belongings. Annexure - I is alleged to be the letter sent by the 3rd respondent, in which, she stated that she is leaving on her own will. It is the case of the petitioner that, he resigned from his job in the Gulf and came back to his native place hoping for a reunion. But the 3rd respondent was not ready for the same, is the submission. It is also submitted that, O.P.No.139/2011 filed by the 3rd respondent for return of gold ornaments was dismissed by the Family Court. It is also submitted that, as per Annexure-III order, the learned Magistrate dismissed M.C.15/2011 rejecting the contention of the 3rd respondent that there was harassment from the side of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that, knowing that M.C.No.15/2011 will be dismissed, criminal prosecution was initiated against the petitioner with the same set of facts. The contention raised by the petitioner is that, when there is a finding in Annexure - III order that there is no cruelty from the side of the petitioner, the continuation of the prosecution under Section 498A IPC is an abuse of the process of the court.