Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 41127
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. G. Ajithkumar, J
SHAMSUDHEEN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 7238/2018
C.ANILKUMAR (KALLESSERIL), SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR, SRI.P.M.MANASH, SRI.A.AFSAL, SMT.SANDHYA RAJU (R2)
Allegations of cruelty under IPC Section 498A and bigamy under Section 494 were not substantiated, leading to the quashing of proceedings against accused Nos. 2 to 4.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498A and 494 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 198 - Allegations of cruelty and bigamy - The court found that the allegations did not constitute cruelty as defined under Section 498A, nor did they meet the requirements for prosecution under Section 494 due to the lack of a proper complaint as mandated by Section 198 of the Cr.P.C. (Paras 7, 8, 9)
(B) Quashing of proceedings - The court quashed the proceedings against accused Nos. 2 to 4, stating that the prosecution was not maintainable based on the allegations presented. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, accused Nos. 2 to 4, were charged with offences under Sections 498A, 494, and 34 of the IPC, based on allegations of harassment and bigamy involving the 1st accused and the 2nd respondent.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the allegations did not substantiate the charges under Sections 498A and 494 IPC, leading to the quashing of the proceedings against the petitioners.
Issues: The main issues were whether the allegations constituted cruelty under Section 498A and whether the prosecution under Section 494 was valid given the requirements of Section 198 of the Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the allegations did not meet the definitions of cruelty under Section 498A and that the prosecution under Section 494 was barred due to the absence of a proper complaint as required by law.
Result: Criminal Miscellaneous Case allowed; proceedings quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of harassment (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. false complaint alleged (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. no harassment established (Para 8) |
| 4. prosecution under section 494 (Para 9) |
ORDER
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed by accused Nos.2 to 4 in C.C.No.1009/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-I Mattancherry, Ernakulam District.
2. The prosecution is initiated against the petitioners and the 1st accused alleging offences punishable under Sections 498 A , 494 & 34 of the IPC .
3. The prosecution is that, the 1st accused married the 2nd respondent on 29.12.2006 as per the religious custom prevailing in the Muslim Community. After the marriage, the 1st accused and the 2nd respondent were living together as husband and wife. During the wedlock, they have one son aged 10 years. The allegation is that, the 1st accused and the petitioners used to harass the 2nd respondent mentally and physically. On the basis of the statement of the 2nd respondent, Crime No.696/2017 was registered by Fort Kochi Police Station as evident by Annexure A1. After the investigation, final report is filed. Annexure A2 is the final report. According to the petitioners, even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence is made out. Hence, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that, Annexure A1 FIR is registered on the basis of a false complaint filed with an intention to harass the petitioners. It is submitted that, even before the marriage, the 2nd respondent is suffering from Mental Retardation with Psychosis and undergoing treatment for the same. Annexure A3 is produced to prove the same. According to the petitioners, even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence is made out. The Public Prosecutor submitted that, the contentions raised by the petitioners are matters of evidence and the same is to be proved before the trial Court at the appropriate stage.
6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. Annexure A2 is the final report. It would be better to extract the relevant portion of the final report:
כ “ 1- o സാ്ᩌിയുടെ(cid:12) ഭർ്ᩈാവായ ്ᩚതിയുടെ(cid:12) ആദ്യ വിവാഹം നിയമപരമായി
כ വേവർടെപടു്ᩈിയ വേ(cid:31)ഷം 1- oസാ്ᩌിടെയ 29.12.2006 തീയതി വേ’ാർ ്ᨾ്ടെ*ാ്ᨴി *ാൽവ്ᩈിയിലു്ᩦ ജുമാ മസ്ജിദ് പ്ᩦിയിൽ ടെവ്ᨴ് ഇ്ᩪാം മതാചാര്ᩚ*ാരം
כ വിവാഹിതരായ വേ(cid:31)ഷം ഭർ്ᩈാവായ 1- o כ כ ്ᩚതിᨪം 1- o ്ᩚതിയുടെ(cid:12) വാ്ᩔയായ 2- o כ ്ᩚതിᨪം സവേഹാദരനായ 3- o ്ᩚതിᨪം
כ സവേഹാദരടെ7 ഭാര്യയായ 4- o ്ᩚതിᨪം ഒ്ᩔം വേ’ാർ്ᨾ്ടെ*ാ്ᨴി കുള്ᨲര*്ᩈ് വീ്ᨾിൽ כ (തുരു്ᩈി) ടെവ്ᨴ 1- o സാ്ᩌി്ᨪ് മാനസി*മായ അസുഖം ഉടെFᩐം മᩢം പറᨼ മവേനാവിഷമം ഉFാ്ᨪിയും അ്ᨪാരണ്ᩈാൽ 1 മുതൽ 4 വടെര ്ᩚതി*ൾ כ ഒᩈവേചർᩐ 1- o സാ്ᩌിടെയ (cid:12)ിയാളുടെ(cid:12) വസതിയിവേP്ᨪ് പറ്ᨼയᨴം (cid:12)ി
כ വിവാഹബ്ᩏം നിPനിൽടെ്ᨪ 1- o ്ᩚതി
כ തൃശൂർ ഗുരുവായൂരിലു്ᩦ 12- o സാ്ᩌിടെയ വിവാഹം ടെചᩓം 2 മുതൽ 4 വടെര ്ᩚതി*ൾ (cid:12)ി വിവാഹ്ᩈിൽ പᨮവേചർᩐ സഹ*രിᨴം ഒ്ᩈാ(cid:31) ടെചᩓം 1ഉം 12ഉം സാ്ᩌി*ൾ്ᨪ് വിവാഹ സ്ᩜാനമായി Pഭി്ᨴ സ്വർണാഭരണ്ᨲളും പണവും
כ അന്യാധീനടെ്ᩔടു്ᩈിയും 1- o സാ്ᩌി*് ഭാര്യടെയ്ᩐ പരിഗണനവേയാ പരിPാളനവേയാ
כ നൽ*ാടെത 1- o സാ്ᩌി മാനസി*മായും (cid:31)ാരീരി*മായും പീഡി്ᩔിᨴം 1 മുതൽ 4 വടെര ്ᩚതി*ൾ u/s 498(A), 494 ആൻഡ് 34 IPC ്ᩚ*ാരം ഉ്ᩦ കു്ᩢം ടെച്ᩓിരിᨪᩐ എ്ᩐ്.”
7. The question to be decided is whether the offence under Sections 498A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code are made out based on the above allegation. To attract Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to prove that the husband or relatives of the husband of a woman subjected such woman with cruelty as defined in the explanation to . The cruelty is defined in the explanation to . It would be better to extract and it's explanation:
498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprison
