The court ruled that prima facie evidence of harassment justified proceeding with charges against the petitioner under Section 498-A IPC.

O R D E R

Dated this the 20^th day of December, 2024

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 seeking the following prayer;

“to quash all further proceedings emanating from Crime No.1444/2022 of Thiruvalla Police Station and pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvalla as C.C.No.2222 of 2022 (Anneuxre-A11) as any further prosecution of the petitioner would only be an abuse of the process of the Court and against the interest of justice.”

Petitioner is the 6^th accused in this case.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent. Also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the averments in the petition and the relevant documents including the objection filed by the 3^rd respondent and the documents produced thereof.

3. In this matter, the case of the prosecution is that accused Nos. 1 to 6 committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A , 323, 324 , 143 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (for short 'the IPC '). The sum and substance of the allegation is that the 1^st accused in this crime married the 3^rd respondent on 01.11.2021 at St.Thomas Orthodox Church, Kallissery. The further allegation is that while she was staying at the matrimonial home after the marriage, and also when she stayed at the residence of the 6^th accused on the date of marriage, and thereafter from 8^th March, 2022 at the residence of the 6^th accused, accused Nos. 1 to 6 jointly threatened the 3^rd respondent/de facto complainant mentally and physically who suffers from amnesia. The further allegation is that they made her read sentences in the newspapers to keep the same by heart and recite them to test her. They also induced the de facto complainant to give complaint against her parents before the Tiruvalla Police. The further allegation is that the accused obtained blank signed papers from her during this period. There is specific allegation that, on 30.06.2022, when the de facto complainant reached the matrimonial home on leave from her employment, the accused manhandled and commanded the de facto complainant to go out from the house and accordingly she was taken to the house of the 6^th accused on 02.07.2022. While she was at the house of the 6^th accused, the 6^th accused called her as a 'prostitute' and physically assaulted her. Later she was abandoned to her family house.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has no role in this crime and the petitioner being the maternal uncle of the 1^st accused provided his residence for the purpose of preparation of marriage, which was solemnised at St.Thomas Orthodox Church, Kallissery and thereafter the de facto complainant and the 1^st accused started to reside at the matrimonial home. After the marriage the 6^th accused has no connection with them. He was roped into this crime without any substance.

5. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner further that the complaint which led to registration of this crime was originally lodged only on 29.07.2022 as evident from the endorsement made by the Magistrate, and prior to that the 1^st accused lodged Annexure-A 7 divorce OP on 05.07.2022. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that initially, as on 01.07.2022, the 1^st accused lodged a complaint before the Thiruvalla Police Station against 3^rd respondent and her parents and acting on the complaint, the de facto complainant was brought to the police station and after negotiation they were sent back as per Annexre-A6, finding existence of family dispute and relegating them to move before the Family Court. It is also pointed out that the de facto complainant executed Anneuxre-A5 declaration as on 02.07.2022 stating that her husband and his relatives did not physically or mentally assault her. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner pressed for the quashment of the proceedings on the subm