Kerala High Court
Fir No. 663/2012 Of Munnar Police … vs By Advs.Sri.K.Ramachandran on 16 August, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                                      PRESENT:

                          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

             WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014/18TH POUSHA, 1935

                                          Crl.MC.No. 3166 of 2012 (A)
                                          ---------------------------------------

             FIR NO. 663/2012 OF MUNNAR POLICE STATION , IDUKKI DISTRICT.
                                                     ----------------

PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:
------------------------------------------

            KUNJUKUTTAN, AGED 76 YEARS,
            S/O.VELU (LATE), KARUVANCHERI HOUSE, IRINGAVOOR P.O.,
            MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

            BY ADVS.SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN
                          SMT.S.JAYASREE

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
-----------------------------------------------------------

        1. STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
            HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

        2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
            MUNNAR POLICE STATION, MUNNAR, PIN-685 546.

        3. LOORDHMARY,
            D/O.AMALRAJ, NALLATHANNI ESTATE,
            NADAYAR SOUTH DIVISION, KDH VILLAGE, MUNNAR-685 546.

          R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. REJI JOSEPH,
                  R3 BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN.

          THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
          ON 08-01-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:




Msd.

Crl.MC.No. 3166 of 2012 (A)
---------------------------------------

                                               APPENDIX
                                               ---------------

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:
------------------------------------------

ANNEXURE-1:                    CERTIFIED COPY F.I.R NO.663/2012 OF MUNNAR POLICE
                               STATION ALONG WITH THE COMPLAINT.

ANNEXURE-2:                    TRUE COPY OF W.P(CRL)NO.381/2011 DATED 16.08.2011
                               (WITHOUT EXHIBITS).

ANNEXURE-3:                    TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.09.2011 IN
                               W.P(CRL)NO.381/2011.

ANNEXURE-4:                    MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 27.09.2012 ISSUED TO THE
                               PETITIONER.


RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:
---------------------------------------------

                                               NIL

                                                                  //TRUE COPY\\


                                                                  P.A.TO JUDGE.


Msd.



                         A.HARIPRASAD, J.
               ------------------------------------------------
                      Crl.M.C.No.3166 of 2012
               ------------------------------------------------
               Dated this the 8th day of January, 2014.

                                O R D E R

Petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.663/2012 of Munnar Police Station. The charges levelled against the petitioner and the first accused in the crime are punishable under Section 498 A IPC.

2. The crime was registered on the basis of a complaint filed before the learned Magistrate, which was forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for investigation. Brief allegations in Annexure I complaint are that the complainant/3rd respondent was married to the first accused, who is the son of the petitioner that their marriage was solemnised under the provisions of Special Marriage Act at Sub Registrar Office, Devikulam and it was on 13-06-2011. Till 15-06-2011 first accused and the complainant resided at Nallathanni Estate at Devikulam, where the house of the complainant is situated. On 15-06-2011, first accused went to his place of work at Ernakulam. Thereafter, he could not be contacted. It is the allegation in the complaint that the petitioner over phone  demanded dowry from the complainant and stated that without dowry, she would not be allowed to come to his house. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the entire allegations in the complaint are taken together, they will not establish an offence under Section 498A IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on the decision in Rajesh Gutta v. State of A.P and Others (2011 KHC 573) to argue a proposition that merely some reference is made regarding the demand of dowry in a complaint, it will not reveal an offence punishable under Section 498 A IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further rely on a decision of the Apex Court in Girdhar Shankar Tawade v. State of Maharashtra ((2002)5 SCC 177) to contended that the term ‘cruelty’ defined in Explanation under Section 498A IPC, especially in clause (b) therein, in no uncertain terms records harassment of a woman and the statute itself thereafter clarifies it to the effect that it is not every such harassment, but only in the event of such a harassment being with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable  security. In this case, there is no averment in the complaint, contended the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant would submit that to her knowledge, the investigation has proceeded and culminated in filing a final report before the court below.

5. Annexure 3 is the judgment passed by Division Bench of this court in writ petition W.P(C) No.381/2011. It is seen that the complainant filed a writ petition requesting the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus against respondents, including the petitioner herein, for alleged unlawful detention of her husband. That matter was disposed of by the Division Bench with the following observations :

“Read the earlier orders. The alleged detenu is present. He says that he works somewhere in Orissa. He candidly says that he is not under the illegal detention of respondents 5 and 6, as alleged. He also states that he is not interested to go with the petitioner. We record the submission. We do not think that the alleged detenu is under illegal detention. The matter is hence closed.”

6. Considering the materials on record, I am of the view that there is no allegation in the complaint justifying the implication of the petitioner in an offence under Section 498A IPC. Since it is not evident as to whether a final report has been filed by the Investigating Officer before the court below, I hereby dispose of the Crl.M.C with following directions :

It is clear that the averments in the petition are not sufficient to implicate him in an offence under 498A IPC. Therefore, the petitioner is free to claim discharge before the trial court, if a final report had already been filed. In that event, the petitioner shall be granted exemption from personal appearance before the court below. It is also made clear that the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the final report, if any filed in this matter in appropriate proceedings.

All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.

Sd/-

A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.

                                                  //True Copy//


amk                                               P.A to Judge


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s