Vague allegations of mental cruelty do not meet the threshold under Section 498A IPC, and lack of specifics in misappropriation claims under Section 406 IPC leads to quashing of proceedings.

ORDER :

G.GIRISH, J.

The petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.740/2024 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Koyilandy, which arose out of Crime No.332/2024 of Elathur Police Station, Kozhikode. The offences alleged against them are under Sections 498A & 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , (in short, ‘ IPC '). The offences relate to the alleged matrimonial cruelty perpetrated upon the de facto complainant by the first petitioner, who is her husband, and accused Nos.2, 3 & 4, who are respectively her mother-in-law, brother-in-law and wife of brother-in-law. It is alleged that ever since the marriage between the first petitioner and the de facto complainant on 03.02.2019, she was being subjected to mental cruelty by the petitioners. There is also the allegation that the petitioners misappropriated 63 sovereigns of gold ornaments which the de facto complainant obtained at the time of her marriage.

2. In the present petition, the petitioners would contend that even if the allegations levelled against them are accepted on face value, it will not constitute the offences alleged against them. It is further contended that even before the marriage, the de facto complainant was undergoing treatment for psychiatric illness, and that the marriage was performed suppressing the above illness of the de facto complainant. According to the petitioners, they made all efforts to get the de facto complainant cured of her illness by providing treatment for her at the Government Medical College, Calicut. It is stated that despite the petitioners’ best efforts to provide appropriate treatment, the de facto complainant’s mental illness showed no significant improvement. In the above circumstances, the first petitioner is said to have issued a legal notice to the de facto complainant on 27.03.2024, for the dissolution of his marriage with her. It is stated that the de facto complainant preferred the present complaint thereafter as an act of reprisal to the aforesaid legal notice issued by the first petitioner. For the above reason, the petitioners seek the quashment of the proceedings against them by invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 .

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

4. The Elathur Police of Kozhikode District, registered this crime on 17.04.2024 on the basis of the First Information Statement (FIS) which the de facto complainant gave on that date. It is stated in the above said FIS that the second petitioner compelled the de facto complainant to undergo psychiatric treatment for the reason that on one occasion, she was found to be playing with children near her house. Another allegation in the above statement is that the petitioners subjected the de facto complainant to mental cruelty by saying that she was not good looking, and that the first petitioner would have got a better marriage relationship. Further allegation raised by the de facto complainant is that the petitioners did not give back her 63 sovereigns of gold ornaments which she was having at the time of marriage. In the further statements given by the de facto complainant to the Investigating Officer also, she had not stated anything in specific about the mental cruelty alleged to have been perpetrated by the petitioners. There is only a vague and superficial allegation that she was subjected to insult by the petitioners by stating that she was not good looking, and that the first petitioner would have got a better alliance. It is true that the de facto complainant had stated to the Investigating Officer that she was subjected to psychiatric treatment by the petitioners for the silly reason that she had joined the children of the nearby locality for playing shuttle badminton. However, the medical records produced by the petitioners as Annexures- A3 to A5 would go to show that the de fact