IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN TUESDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1946 CRL.MC NO. 5969 OF 2019 CRIME NO.1741/2017 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM IN C.C.

NO.68/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-IX, ERNAKULAM.

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

ULLAS BABU, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN, SHARADHA NILAYAM, KAIMANAM P.O., PAPPANAMKODU, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.

B.RAMAN PILLAI (SR.)

SRI.R.ANIL SRI.M.SUNILKUMAR SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B.

SRI.T.ANIL KUMAR SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL)

SRI.THOMAS SABU VADAKEKUT SMT.S.LAKSHMI SANKAR RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/FIRST INFORMANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031.

2 SIMI, AGED 34 YEARS, D/O.THILAKAN, FLAT M JEWEL ROYAL, PALARIVATTAM, ERNAKULAM, NOW RESIDING AT KOOTTUNGAL HOUSE, KOTTUVALLIKKADU, MUTHAKUNNAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683516.

R1 SRI.M.P.PRASANTH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

09.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Dated this the 9^th day of July, 2024 This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner, who is the sole accused in Crime No.1741/2017 of Palarivattom Police Station, Kochi City, now pending as C.C. No.68/2018 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IX, Ernakulam, seeking to quash Annexure C Final Report in the above said Crime. In this matter, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 506 and 354D of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC” for short hereinafter).

2. The prosecution allegation is that while the defacto complainant and the accused were living together as husband and wife in consequence of a legal marriage held on 10.12.2012, the accused herein subjected her to threats and molestation by outraging her modesty.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that even though there was marriage on 10.12.2012, the same was divorced as per the common judgment in O.P.Nos.465/2017, 2073/2016, 285/2017, 202/2018, M.C. No.451/2016 dated 03.01.2020. During pendency of the divorce petition, this complaint was filed alleging commission of the above offences. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the allegations are false and no allegations specifically made out to find commission of offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC. Considering the relationship between the parties as husband and wife, no offence under Section 354 of IPC would attract. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought quashment of the proceedings.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out Annexure B FIR, though he also fairly conceded that no offence under Section 354 of IPC would attract, in this case, to justify commission of offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC, by the accused, prima facie.

5. On perusal of the FIS and other records, it is seen that the entire prosecution is based on vague allegations made during the pendency of many proceedings before the Family Court, as evidenced by the common order already disposed. Thus on no stretch of imagination, it could be held that an offence under Section 354 of IPC would attract in the facts of the case, where the parties are husband and wife during the relevant period. The general allegation of threat is the base on which the prosecution alleges commission of offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC, though no specific overt acts alleged. In fact, the ingredients to attract offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC not made out, prima facie in this case.

6. In that view of the matter, the petition is liable to be allowed.

In the result, this petition stands allowed. Accordingly, Annexure C Final Report in Crime No.1741/2017 of Palarivattom Police Station, Kochi City, now pending as C.C. No.68/2018 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IX, Ernakulam stands quas