IMPORTANT POINT
Specific allegations of cruelty and misappropriation are sufficient for prosecution under IPC, and no sanction under Section 188 is needed if part of the acts occurred in India.

ORDER :

Accused Nos. 2 to 4 in C.C. No. 433 of 2023, pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thalassery, arising out of Crime No. 815 of 2022 of Thalassery Police Station, have filed this Crl. M.C. under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), and the prayers are as follows:

i. “Quash all further proceedings in Annexure-A2 final report against the petitioners in Crime No. 815 of 2022 of Telicherry police station, now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thalassery as C.C.No. 433 of 2023 and

ii. Issue such other order or direction, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4, and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, also perused the counter-statements and documents submitted by the 3rd respondent. Case diary produced by the learned public prosecutor also has gone through.

3. On the facts of this case, it is noted that the marriage between Nidhin Devanandh (the 1st accused), the son of the 2nd and 3rd accused and the 4th respondent was solemnized on 28.02.2016. At the time of the marriage, the 3rd respondent gave 200 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the 4th respondent. According to the 3rd respondent, a portion of the said gold ornaments was purchased from Krishna Jewellery, and the remaining items were brought from Abu Dhabi. Pursuant to the marriage, both couples went abroad and before that, they kept the 200 sovereigns of gold ornaments in locker No. 154 at the Indian Overseas Bank, Thalassery, in their joint names. During their joint residence, a male child was also born to them. The further allegation is that, when 4th respondent stayed in America along with the 1st accused, he persecuted the 4th respondent demanding that her salary be transferred to his name. The specific allegation is that, thereafter, in connivance with the 2nd accused, who held the position of Manager at the Indian Overseas Bank, Thalassery, he, along with the 5th accused, the then manager, allowed the brother of the 1st accused to operate the locker. Accordingly, on 24.03.2022 and 12.04.2022, the 4th accused opened the locker, removed the gold ornaments, and misappropriated 200 sovereigns of gold kept therein. After the investigation, Annexure-A2 final report was filed on 02.04.2023, alleging that accused Nos. 1 to 4 committed offences punishable under Sections 498A, 420, 406 , 409 read with 34 of the IPC , and that the 5th accused committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, and 409 of IPC .

4. While challenging the prosecution initiated against the petitioners, who are the father, mother, and brother of the 1st accused, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that mere general and omnibus allegations alone would not constitute an offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC . Furthermore, upon reading the First Information Statement (FIS) given by the 3rd respondent, it is argued that the same does not justify the registration of this crime. Learned counsel relied on the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2022 KHC Online 6153 Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others v. State of Bihar and Others, where the Apex Court dealt with a matter involving an offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC . After referring to earlier decisions of the Apex Court, it held in paragraphs 16 and 17 as follows:"

“16. In Geeta Mehrotra and Another v. State of UP and Another, 2012 KHC 4612 : (2012) 10 SCC 741 2012 (10) SCALE 299 AIR 2013 SC 181: (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 212 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 120, it was observed:

"21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G. V. Rao v. L. H. V. Prasad and Others reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have qua