Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.
Sreekanth @ Sreekanth Anandaram - Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. The Inspector of Police, Thiruverumbur & Another - Respondent
CRL.O.P.(MD). No. 11284 of 2019 & CRL.M.P(MD) Nos. 7066 & 7067 of 2019
Decided On : 16-09-2022
Criminal Intimidation - Matrimonial Dispute - Sections 498(A) and 506(i) IPC - [498(A), 506(1)] - The court discussed the allegations of mental cruelty and criminal intimidation in the context of the petitioner's alleged homosexual activities and the failed agreement between the parties. The court referred to key legal provisions and interpretations from the decisions of Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat, Ghusabhai Raisangbhai Chorasiya v. State of Gujarat, and K.V.Prakash Babu v. State of Karnataka to establish that an extra-marital relationship, even if proven, does not necessarily constitute mental cruelty under Section 498(A) IPC. The court also referred to the definition of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC and emphasized the need for real and substantial threats to establish the offense. Based on the lack of evidence to support the allegations, the court concluded that permitting the prosecution to proceed further would amount to an abuse of process of law and quashed the proceedings in C.C.No.1216 of 2019.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the sole accused, was charged under Sections 498(A) and 506(i) IPC based on allegations of homosexual activities and criminal intimidation by the second respondent. The case arose from a matrimonial dispute between the parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations of mental cruelty and criminal intimidation lacked sufficient evidence to support the charges. It concluded that permitting the prosecution to proceed further would amount to an abuse of process of law and quashed the proceedings in C.C.No.1216 of 2019.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the allegations of mental cruelty and criminal intimidation in the context of the petitioner's alleged homosexual activities and the failed agreement between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on key legal provisions and interpretations from the decisions of Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat, Ghusabhai Raisangbhai Chorasiya v. State of Gujarat, and K.V.Prakash Babu v. State of Karnataka to establish that an extra-marital relationship, even if proven, does not necessarily constitute mental cruelty under Section 498(A) IPC. The court also emphasized the need for real and substantial threats to establish the offense of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC.
Final Decision: The court quashed the proceedings in C.C.No.1216 of 2019, citing the lack of evidence to support the allegations of mental cruelty and criminal intimidation.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records relating to the proceedings in C.C.No.1216 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court (Magistrate Level) Trichy and may quash the same.)
1. The Criminal Original Petition is filed, invoking Section 482 of Cr.PC., seeking orders to call for the records pertaining to the case in C.C.No.1216 of 2019 pending on the file of the Additional Mahila Court (Magistrate Level) Trichy and quash the same.
2. The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.1216 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court (Magisterial Level) Trichy. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the second respondent, FIR came to the registered in Crime No.7 of 2018, dated 05.06.2018 against the petitioner under Sections 498(A) and 506(i) IPC. The first respondent, after completing the investigation, has laid the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C, dated 30.11.2018 against the petitioner for the alleged offence under Sections 498(A) and 506(i) and the case was taken on file in C.C.No.1216 of 2019 and the same is pending on the Additional Mahila Court (Magisterial Level) Trichy.
3.Admittedly, the marriage between the petitioner and the second respondent was solemnized on 23.11.2010 at Lalit Mahal Auditorium, Thiruvananthapuram as per Hindu rites and rituals and that due to their wedlock, they were blessed with a boy baby namely, Ananthakrishnan.
4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working as Assistant Professor in National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli and the second respondent was working in Corporation Bank at Kottayam, Kerala and that subsequently, the second respondent joined in Dairy Development Department of Kerala.
5. It is also not in dispute that the second respondent has filed a petition for divorce against the petitioner in 2014 and due to mediation talk, they have entered into an agreement and accordingly, she had withdrawn her divorce petition and went to the petitioner's quarters at NIT Campus and stayed there for a period of ten months.
6. The case of the prosecution is that though the second respondent had stayed at NIT Campus with the petitioner for a period of 10 months, they did not have any conjugal relationship; that on 28.04.2015, the second respondent had noticed homosexual activities of the petitioner with one of his student; that when the same was questioned by the second respondent, the petitioner had caused criminal intimidation and that the petitioner having such illegal relationship with his student, had caused cruelty to the second respondent.
7. It is pertinent to note that in the complaint based on which, the present FIR came to the registered, the defacto complainant has stated that after coming to know about the homosexual activities of the petitioner, she came across whatsapp chats in his mobile and came to know that the petitioner is having chronic homosexual trait and he is having innumerable number of male partners; that he utilizes his official capacity as Assistant Professor as well as Associate Dean for finding out male students as his partners, that he had also supplied narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances to the said students and thereby, induced them to have homosexual activities with him, that she had also transferred videos and photos available in the petitioner's mobile and laptop, that thereafter, she returned to Thiruvanathapuram along with her child and informed the petitioner about the whatsapp chat and the evidence which she was having, and that the petitioner admitted his mistakes and expressed his willingness for settlement and accordingly, they have entered into a written agreement on 25.06.2016 in the presence of his counsel and whereunder, the petitioner agreed to give Rs.45 Lakhs to the second respondent and also expressed his willingness to file a petition for divorce on mutual consent and also to waive his right over the minor child and in return, the second respondent w
AI
Allegations of mental cruelty and criminal intimidation must be supported by sufficient evidence to establish the offenses under Sections 498(A) and 506(i) IPC.
Filing an FIR under Section 498-A IPC can be quashed if the allegations are vague and do not demonstrate acts of cruelty as defined by law, particularly when linked to ongoing matrimonial disputes.
The court emphasized the importance of preventing abuse of process of law and considered the nature of the alleged offenses and the existence of serious disputes between the parties in reaching its d....
Vague or farfetched allegations should be scrutinized, and if found frivolous, they should be quashed. Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC should not be loosely invoked without proper justification.
The High Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the reliability of evidence at the stage of invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The court emphasized that the inherent powers vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly and declined to quash the proceedings based on....
The pendency of a civil proceeding does not automatically end a criminal proceeding, and specific allegations of harassment and demand of dowry warrant further investigation.
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
