SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 14248

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.PRATHEEP KUMAR, J
RAMACHANDRAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 1583 OF 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.M.R.NANDAKUMAR, SMT.MAYIKA SUNDAR, SHRI.ARJUN ANIL, SMT.ASIN V.S.
For the Respondents: SMT. C.SEENA

The court upheld that allegations under Section 498A of IPC were substantiated, rejecting the petition to quash proceedings.

Headnote:The judgment pertains to a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing proceedings in relation to an alleged offence under Section 498A of IPC involving cruelty and dowry. The court found that the allegations prima facie made out an offence under 498A, rejecting the petitioner's claims of falsehood due to lack of evidence.

Table of Content
1. facts and allegations of cruelty against petitioner are presented. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. court finds sufficient basis to proceed under 498a ipc. (Para 5)

O R D E R Dated this the 24th day of February, 2026 The accused in CC.No.1402/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Wadakkanchery, arising out of Crime No.185/2021 of Chelakkara Police Station, Thrissur, filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying for quashing all further proceedings against him. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 498 A of IPC .

2. The prosecution case is that the accused, who is the husband of the defacto complainant, subjected her to cruelty both physically and mentally on the ground of dowry, appropriated her gold ornaments, failed to maintain the defacto complainant and her children, spread allegations against her and on 23.9.2020 at about 6.30 p.m., while she was returning from her place of work, he wrongfully restrained her and voluntarily caused hurt to her.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this is a false case foisted against the petitioner. Further according to the learned counsel, there is a delay of six months in reporting the matter to the police and also that no medical records are produced to prove the prosecution case. Therefore, he prayed for quashing all further proceedings against the petitioner.

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

Though notice was served on the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant, she did not turn up.

5. In the FI statement, it is alleged that the petitioner is not looking after the defacto complainant and their children and as such she is looking after the children with the income she derived from a job done by her. It is alleged that on 23.9.2020 at about 6.30 p.m., while she was returning from her place of work, the petitioner wrongfully restrained her, voluntarily caused hurt to her and not permitting her to lead a peaceful life along with the children. The allegations levelled against the petitioner prima facie makes out the offence under Section 498 A of IPC and as such the prayer for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner is liable to be rejected.

In the result, this Criminal M.C. is dismissed.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top