IPC Section 354A does not apply to women; general allegations must be specific to avoid quashing proceedings.

“C.R”

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

================================

Crl.M.C No.7541 of 2023 and Crl.M.C.No.10135 of 2023 ================================

Dated this the 12^th day of August, 2024

C O M M O N O R D E R

The 3^rd accused in C.C.No.3010/2021, on the files of Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Nedumangad, has filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C’ for short) seeking the following reliefs:

“i. To quash Annexure A1 FIR and Annexure A3 Final Report and all further proceedings in Crime No.1704 of 2019 of Vattiyoorkavu Police Station presently pending trial before Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Nedumangad as CC.No.3010/2021.

(b) Pass such any other order, direction or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.”

2. Crl.M.C.No.7541/2023 is at the instance of the 4^th accused in the above crime. She also seeks quashment of the above proceedings.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused materials.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners/3^rd and 4^th accused argued that there are no allegations specifically made out as against the petitioners, who are the 3^rd and 4^th accused in the above case, to attract offence punishable under Sections 498A , 354A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code . He also submitted that the 3^rd and 4^th accused/petitioners herein are ladies and therefore no offence under Section 354A of the IPC would attract against them. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners further that only omnibus allegations are raised against the petitioners in as much as the other offences are concerned and the same are insufficient to proceed against the petitioners. He has placed decisions of the Apex Court reported in [MANU/SC/0163/2022],Mahkashan Kausar & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. He also argued that in order to lodge a proper complaint, mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not be all and end of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence and decision of the Apex Court reported in [MANU/SC/1733/2009],Neelu Chopra & Ors. v. Bharti, has been placed in this regard. Misuse of provisions under Section 498A to rope in distinct relatives of the husband in crimes also highlighted with the aid of the decision in [2018 KHC 6625 : 2018(2) KLD 766 : 2018 (1)) SCALE 112 : AIR 2018 SC 4009 : 2018 (14) SCC 452],Subba Rao K. & Ors. v. State of Telangana rep. By its Secretary. Relying on the decision in in [MANU/DE/0372/2019],Anju v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. dated 04.02.2019, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that general and omnibus allegations, without specifying about the date, time or place of the alleged overt acts, are not sufficient to proceed with trial. Accordingly, he prayed for quashment.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the quashment sought for pointing out the specific allegations raised against the petitioners which would disclose, prima facie, materials to attract the offences alleged by the prosecution.

6. The prosecution allegation herein is that the 1^st accused, the husband of the defacto complainant, the 2^nd accused – the father of the 1^st accused, the 3^rd accused – the mother of the 1^st accused and the 4^th accused - the sister of the 1^st accused, subjected the defacto