Failure to comply with procedural requirements under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C led to the quashing of proceedings due to inconsistencies in the complainant's allegations.

ORDER :

G.Girish, J.

Both these petitions are filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings in C.C No.3013/2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Chengannur, which arose out of Crime No.366/2017 of Venmani Police Station. The petitioner in Crl.M.C No.2698/2024 is the first accused and the petitioner in Crl.M.C No.7408/2023 is the third accused in that case. The offences alleged against them are under Sections 141, 147, 447 and 498A I.P.C.

2. The case was registered by the Venmani Police on13.03.2017 as per the directions of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Chengannur under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C , in a complaint preferred by the de facto complainant/2^nd respondent. The allegation in the said complaint was that the first accused, who married the de facto complainant on 27.08.2012, had been subjecting the de facto complainant to matrimonial cruelty, with the assistance of the second accused-his father, the third accused-his brother, and the 4^th and 5^th accused, who are his grandmother and cousin respectively, demanding more dowry. It is alleged that, in the month of November, 2014, and on 30.11.2016, the accused had physically tortured the de facto complainant at their residence. Thereafter, on 16.12.2016, the accused are alleged to have criminally trespassed into the parental home of the de facto complainant and subjected her to physical torture. In addition to that, the second accused is alleged to have obtained an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- from the de facto complainant. The first accused is alleged to have obtained 100 sovereigns of gold belonging to the de facto complainant. Thus the accused are alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences.

3. In the present petitions, the petitioners would contend that they are totally innocent, and that they have been falsely implicated in this case. According to the petitioners, the inconsistent and contradictory versions in the complaint filed by the de facto complainant, itself reveal the falsity of the allegations levelled against them.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the de facto complainant/second respondent, and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

5. It has been stated by the de facto complainant in paragraph No.4 of the complaint preferred by her before the learned Magistrate that, in the month of November 2014, when the de facto complainant came to the house of the accused, the accused jointly resorted to physical torture upon her. Thereafter, as per the averments in the same paragraph of the complaint, the de facto complainant preferred a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mavelikkara in the year 2015, which was amicably settled in mediation. However, the accused are alleged to have physically assaulted her when she came to their residence on 30.11.2016 to reside there, in accordance with the decisions taken in the mediation. It is not stated by the de facto complainant in the complaint as to what was the state of affairs after the settlement of issues in mediation in 2015, and before 30.11.2016 when she is said to have gone to the house of the accused for residing there in accordance with the understanding arrived in the mediation. In paragraph No.5 of the complaint, it is stated that the first accused obtained 100 sovereigns of gold and the second accused obtained Rs.20,00,000/- from the de facto complainant in the year 2016 for the commencement of a company by the first accused. However, it is not made clear as to whether it was before 30.11.2016 or after 30.11.2016, when the accused are alleged to have physically assaulted her when she came to reside at their house in accordance with the decisions in mediation.

6. The copy of a receipt executed in stamp paper