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) 14252

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.PRATHEEP KUMAR, J
KANNAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 3719 OF 2021



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.V.S.THOSHIN
For the Respondents: SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. BREEZ.M.S

The absence of the complainant and acquittal of co-accused led to quashing of proceedings under IPC section for cruelty.

Headnote:The petitioner, charged under section 498A IPC, sought to quash proceedings based on uncontested claims of false allegations of cruelty stemming from dowry demands. The court noted the absence of the defacto complainant in proceedings and the acquittal of the second accused, concluding that continuing against the petitioner would constitute an abuse of process. The court allowed the petitioner’s plea to quash all actions against them. The final ruling emphasized the absence of sufficient basis for continuing the prosecution.

Table of Content
1. allegations of dowry-related cruelty against the accused. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments presented on behalf of the petitioner and the lack of presence of the complainant. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court observations on the lack of justification for proceeding. (Para 5)
4. ruling allows quashing of the case against the petitioner. (Para 6)

O R D E R Dated this the 24th day of February, 2026 The 1st accused in CC. No.209/2020 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, arising out of Crime No.219/2012 of Pettah Police Station, filed this Crl.M.C. 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 petitioner being the husband of the defacto complainant, subjected her to cruelty both physically and mentally on the ground of dowry and thereby he is alleged to have committed the aforesaid offence.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this is a false case foisted against the petitioner. Further according to the learned counsel, as per Annexure-B judgment, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, has already acquitted the 2nd accused. Therefore, he prayed for quashing proceedings against the petitioner also.

4. The petition was opposed by the learned Public prosecutor. Though notice was served on the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant, she did not turn up.

5. On a perusal of Annexure-B judgment passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, it can be seen that in spite of issuing coercive steps, the prosecution could not procure the attendance of the defacto complainant. It was in the above context, the learned Magistrate acquitted the 2nd accused. It is also submitted that even now, the defacto complainant is settled abroad. In the above circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings against the petitioners as the same will only be an abuse of the process of the Court.

6. Therefore, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in CC. No.209/2020 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, arising out of Crime No.219/2012 of Pettah Police Station, is quashed.

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