Insufficient specific allegations under IPC Sections 406 and 498A warrant quashing of proceedings.

O R D E R Dated this the 14^th day of January, 2026 Petitioners are the accused persons involved in CC. No.143/2023 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thamassery, arising out of Crime No.41/2023 of Mukkom Police Station, Kozhikode. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 406 and 498A of IPC .

2. The prosecution case is that the 1^st accused married the defacto complainant as per the religious rites and ceremonies on 26.6.2020. While they were living together as husband and wife, at the residence of the 1^st accused, along with his parents, namely the accused persons 2 and 3, they subjected her to cruelty both physically and mentally and appropriated her 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments and thereby they are alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, even if the entire allegations levelled against the petitioners are believed, the same does not constitute the offences under Sections 406 and 498 A of of IPC . Therefore, she prayed for quashing all further proceedings against the petitioner.

4. The petition was strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the defacto complainant/2^nd respondent as well as by the learned Public prosecutor.

5. On a perusal of the FI statement, it is revealed that 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments belonging to the defacto complainant was kept in a bank locker in the joint names of the 1^st petitioner and the defacto complainant and it is still there. Her allegation is that the 1^st petitioner is keeping the key of the locker and as such she could not take away the gold ornaments. At the time of arguments, it is also revealed that the defacto complainant has already preferred an OP before the Family Court for return of the gold ornaments. In the above circumstances, the offence under Section 406 IPC will not hold good.

6. The main allegation in the FI statement is that the child born to the 1^st petitioner and the defacto complainant has some developmental delay and ailment to her eyes. The petitioners accused the defacto complainant as the person responsible for the above ailment of the child. The only specific allegation raised in the FI Statement is against the 2^nd accused that on 29.9.2022 at about 10 p.m., while she was laying in the bedroom, he called her and since she had not opened the door in time, he broke open the door and assaulted her. However, as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, no such allegations were raised by the defacto complainant in Annexure A3 complaint dated 15.10.2022 and Annexure A4 notice dated 9.1.2023. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, such an allegation was raised in the FI statement was an afterthought in order to make out a case against the petitioners. Though several allegations are raised in the FI statement, they are only general in nature and not even a single specific instance with material particulars like date are disclosed.

7. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant, relying upon the definition of the word cruelty, as defined in Section 498A , would argue that the conduct of the petitioners are sufficient to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, whether mental or physical of the woman and as such the allegations will make out the offence under of IPC .

8. However, the allegation is that on 29.9.2022 at about 10 p.m., the 2^nd accused broke open the bedroom and abused her and beat her using his hand. No wound certificate is produced along with the final report. Moreover, as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in Annexures A3 and A4, there is no allegation that the 2^nd petitioner assaulted her. In the absence of