Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 13594

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.PRATHEEP KUMAR, J
SHYAMALA SATHEESAN AGED 64 YEARS W/O. LATE SATHEESAN, HAVING PERMANENT RESIDENCE AT 15 HAWTHORN CLOSE, PATCHWAY, BRISTOL, B.S34 5SJ, UNITED KINGDOM AND ALSO HAVING RESIDENCE AT KAILASAM, THELLAKOM (P.O), KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686630 – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 10853 OF 2025 | CC NO.125 OF 2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.C.AJITH KUMAR, SMT.P.PREETHA, SHRI.RAJEEVU L.G., SMT.VARSHA S.S.
For the Respondents: PP. ADV. SMT. C.SEENA

Insufficient specific allegations against accused quashes charges under IPC provisions.

Headnote:In this case, the petitioners have filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Case seeking to quash proceedings against them under Sections 498A and 354 of IPC, citing lack of specific allegations. The Court noted that allegations were generalized and did not provide material particulars against the petitioners, leading to the conclusion that continuing proceedings would be futile (Paragraphs 1-6). The main issue was whether sufficient specifics existed to substantiate the charges against the petitioners. The Court determined the absence of substantial evidence warranted quashing of proceedings (Paragraphs 3-6). Consequently, the Court allowed the Crl.M.C., quashing all proceedings against the petitioners in the mentioned case.

Table of Content
1. overview of the accused and charges. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments regarding lack of specific allegations. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's ruling based on insufficient evidence. (Para 6)

ORDER

Dated this the 23^rd day of February, 2026 The accused persons 3 and 4 in C.C. No. 125 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II (Mobile), Kottayam, arising out of Crime No. 1721 of 2022 of Gandhi Nagar police station, have filed this Crl.M.C. under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. praying for quashing all further proceedings against them. The offences alleged against the petitioner and other accused persons are under Sections 498A and 354 of the IPC .

2. The prosecution case is that the 1^st accused, being the husband of the defacto complainant along with other accused persons, who are his relatives subjected the defacto complainant to cruelty both physically and mentally on the ground of dowry. It is also alleged that the

2^nd accused outraged the modesty of the defacto complainant.

3. According the learned counsel for the petitioners, there are no specific allegations of cruelty and as such according to the learned counsel the proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed.

4. The petition was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. Though notice was served on the 3^rd respondent/

defacto complainant, she did not turn up.

6. On a perusal of the Annexure A2 complainant, it can be seen that several allegations are raised in general against all the accused persons. However, specific allegations are made only against accused persons 1 and 2 and as against the petitioners herein, there is no serious allegations with material particulars like date. Though an offence under Section 354 of the IPC is alleged, it is raised only against the 2^nd accused. In the absence of any specific allegations with material particulars like date against the petitioners, no useful purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings against them. Therefore, this Crl.M.C. is liable to be allowed.

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No. 125 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II (Mobile), Kottayam arising out of Crime No. 1721 of 2022 of Gandhi Nagar police station, is quashed.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document