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

2019 Supreme(Online)(KER) 68949

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

THURSDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1941

Crl.MC.No. 1909 of 2019

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1008/2018 of ADDITIONAL

CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ,THALASSERY

CRIME NO. 306/2018 OF Edakkad Police Station , Kannur

PETITIONER/S:

ZAYANA NAZIM, AGED 21 YEARS

D/O. NAZIMUDHEEN,RESIDING AT ZAYAN,

NEAR RAJAS KALLAI SCHOOL, MADAPEEDIKA,

THALASSERY, KANNUR (DIST)

BY ADVS.

SMT.K.DEEPA (PAYYANUR)

SRI.V.R.NASAR

RESPONDENT/S:

1

STATE OF KERALA

REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF

KERALA, ERNAKULAM,PIN-682 031

2

SABIMA SHERIN, AGED 30 YEARS

D/O.USMAN, RESIDING AT SHABIMAS,

NEAR KANHANGAD MASJID, THOTTADA,

P.O.KIZHUNNA, KANNUR (DIST)

BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN

OTHER PRESENT:

SRI.AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1,

SRI.M.V.AMARESAN FOR R2

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

06.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE

FOLLOWING:

::2::

Crl.MC.No. 1909 of 2019

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

-----------------------------

Crl.M.C.No.1909 Of 2019

---------------------------------

Dated this the 6th day of June, 2019.

Advocates:
['K DEEPA PAYYANUR', '', 'SRI V R NASAR', 'SRI M V AMARESAN']

The case projected in this petition filed under Sec.482 of the

Cr.P.C is as follows:

The petitioner herein is the 3rd accused in C.C.No.1008/2018

on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,

Thalassery in Crime No.306/2018 of Edakkad Police Station,

registered for offence punishable under Sec.498A r/w Sec.34 of the

I.P.C against the petitioner and others, viz., her husband , father-

in-law and unmarried sister-in-law respectively as accused Nos.1 to

3. The substance of the allegations against the petitioners is that

the 1st accused married the defacto complainant on 11.4.2013, that

thereafter during the married life, the accused persons harassed

the defacto complainant mentally as well as physically, demanding

more dowry. Thus all the accused committed the abovesaid

offences. The petitioner would allege that in fact, the above case

has been filed with some ulterior motive of grabbing money from

the petitioner. There is no ingredient to attract the abovesaid

::3::

offences as alleged by the prosecution against any of the accused,

especially against the petitioner. Even if the prosecution case is

assumed to be true, there is no specific allegation against the

petitioner. According to the defacto complainant herself, after one

month of the marriage itself, both the husband and wife went to

Gulf. From Gulf, both husband and wife have lived together at the

flat of the defacto complainant. The one and only allegation raised

against the petitioner is that she had made attempt to separate 1st

accused- husband and the defacto complainant-wife by saying lies

to the husband about the wife. Those types of vague allegations are

not at all sufficient to attract the alleged offence of Sec.498A

against her. The only intention of the defacto complainant is that

to spoil the future and marriage prospects of the unmarried

petitioner by implicating her in a false criminal case. There is no

specific incident of cruelty alleged against the petitioner in Anx-I & II

so as to attract the offence of Sec.498A r/w Sec.34 of the I.P.C. There

is not even a remote probability of the case ending in conviction of

the petitioner and the whole proceedings are vitiated by malafides

and the case against the petitioner is a glaring instance of the abuse

of the process of court. In very many case, the Apex Court held

::4::

that without specific material or evidence it will be hazardous to

ask the accused to face trial. It is in the light of these averments,

that the petitioner has filed the instant petition under Sec.482 of

the Cr.P.C with the following prayers:

“ (i)

to quash Annexure-II final report and all the further

proceeding

pending

against

the

petitioner

in

C.C.No.1008/2018 of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate

Court, Thalassery in Crime No.306/2018 of the Edakkad Police

Station, Kannur, and

(ii)

to issue any other order or direction that Hon'ble Court may

deem fit and proper from time to time for the petitioner to

attain the ends of justice.”

2.

Heard Smt.K.Deepa (Payyannur), learned counsel for

the petitioner, Sri.Amjad Ali, learned Prosecutor for the

1st respondent and Sri.M.V.Amaresan, learned counsel for the

2nd respondent-lady defacto complainant.

3.

From the factual materials it is seen that the impugned

criminal proceedings as per Anx-II Final Report/charge sheet was

filed in Crime No.306/2018 of Edakkad Police Station, which has

now led to the institution of C.C.No.1008/2018 on the file of the

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery. That after

the marriage of the 2nd respondent with the brother of the

petitioner-accused No.3, the 2nd

respondent-lady defacto

complainant has been subjected to cruelty and harassment by her

husband (accused No.1), husband's father (accused No.2),

::5::

husband's unmarried sister (accused No.3), etc. It is common

ground that the petitioner (A-3) is the unmarried sister of A-1. The

allegations raised against the petitioner (A-3) in Anx-I c

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