Kerala High Court
K.C. Kurian @ Sunny vs State Of Kerala on 20 December, 2024
2024:KER:97710
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 5144 OF 2023
CRIME NO.1444/2022 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA
CC NO.2222 OF 2022 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,THIRUVALLA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO:6:
K.C. KURIAN @ SUNNY
AGED 60 YEARS
KARUKEYIL HOUSE, WEST OTHERA P.O., KUTTOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA
TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., KERALA - 689551
BY ADVS. DR.SEBASTIAN CHAMPAPPILLY
SRI.ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA
SRI.GEORGE CLEETUS
SMT.ANNIE GEORGE
SMT.MARGARET MAUREEN DROSE
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031
2 THE S.I. OF POLICE
THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
KERALA., PIN - 689101
3 SHIBY SARA BABU,
AGED 28 YEARS,
NAKRAPARAMBIL, PILAPUZHA MURIYIL, HARIPAD VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA
DISTRICT, KERALA., PIN - 690514
R1 BY SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RENJIT GEORGE
R3 BY ADVS. SRI.SAMPATH V. TOMS
SRI.AMBROSE JUDE DCRUZ(K/001118/2016)
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINAllY HEARD ON 20.11.2024, THE COURT ON
20.12.2024 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5144 of 2023
2
2024:KER:97710
'C.R.'
ORDER
Dated this the 20th day of December, 2024
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
seeking the following prayer;
“to quash all further proceedings emanating
from Crime No.1444/2022 of Thiruvalla Police
Station and pending before the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court, Thiruvalla as C.C.No.2222 of
2022 (Anneuxre-A11) as any further prosecution of
the petitioner would only be an abuse of the
process of the Court and against the interest of
justice.”
Petitioner is the 6th accused in this case.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned counsel appearing for the 3 rd respondent. Also
heard the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the averments
in the petition and the relevant documents including the
Crl.M.C.No.5144 of 2023
3
2024:KER:97710
objection filed by the 3rd respondent and the documents
produced thereof.
3. In this matter, the case of the prosecution is that
accused Nos. 1 to 6 committed offences punishable under
Sections 498-A, 323, 324, 143 and 149 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC‘). The sum and substance of
the allegation is that the 1 st accused in this crime married
the 3rd respondent on 01.11.2021 at St.Thomas Orthodox
Church, Kallissery. The further allegation is that while she
was staying at the matrimonial home after the marriage,
and also when she stayed at the residence of the 6 th
accused on the date of marriage, and thereafter from 8 th
March, 2022 at the residence of the 6 th accused, accused
Nos. 1 to 6 jointly threatened the 3rd respondent/de facto
complainant mentally and physically who suffers from
amnesia. The further allegation is that they made her read
sentences in the newspapers to keep the same by heart
and recite them to test her. They also induced the de facto
Crl.M.C.No.5144 of 2023
4
2024:KER:97710
complainant to give complaint against her parents before
the Tiruvalla Police. The further allegation is that the
accused obtained blank signed papers from her during this
period. There is specific allegation that, on 30.06.2022,
when the de facto complainant reached the matrimonial
home on leave from her employment, the accused
manhandled and commanded the de facto complainant to
go out from the house and accordingly she was taken to
the house of the 6th accused on 02.07.2022. While she was
at the house of the 6th accused, the 6th accused called her
as a ‘prostitute’ and physically assaulted her. Later she was
abandoned to her family house.
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the petitioner has no role in this crime and the petitioner
being the maternal uncle of the 1 st accused provided his
residence for the purpose of preparation of marriage, which
was solemnised at St.Thomas Orthodox Church, Kallissery
and thereafter the de facto complainant and the 1 st accused
Crl.M.C.No.5144 of 2023
5
2024:KER:97710
started to reside at the matrimonial home. After the
marriage the 6th accused has no connection with them. He
was roped into this crime without any substance.
5. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the
petitioner further that the complaint which led to
registration of this crime was originally lodged only on
29.07.2022 as evident from the endorsement made by the
Magistrate, and prior to that the 1 st accused lodged
Annexure-A 7 divorce OP on 05.07.2022. It is also pointed
out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that initially,
as on 01.07.2022, the 1st accused lodged a complaint
before the Thiruvalla Police Station against 3rd respondent
and her parents and acting on the complaint, the de facto
complainant was brought to the police station and after
negotiation they were sent back as per Annexre-A6,
finding existence of family dispute and relegating them to
move before the Family Court. It is also pointed out that
the de facto complainant executed Anneuxre-A5 declaration
Crl.M.C.No.5144 of 2023
6
2024:KER:97710
as on 02.07.2022 stating that her husband and his relatives
did not physically or mentally assault her. Accordingly, the
learned counsel for the petitioner pressed for the
quashment of the proceedings on the submission that
prima facie offences alleged against the 6 th accused are not
made out. In this connection he has placed decision of the
Apex Court reported in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and
Others v. State of Bihar and Others [2022 KHC 6153]
with reference to paragraph Nos.16, 17 and 18.
Paragraph No.18 of the said decision reads as under:
“18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly
demonstrate that this court has at numerous
instances expressed concern over the misuse of S.
498A IPC and the increased tendency of
implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial
disputes, without analysing the long term
ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well
as the accused. It is further manifest from the
said judgments that false implication by way of
general omnibus allegations made in the course of
matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result
in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this
Crl.M.C.No.5144 of 2023
72024:KER:97710
Court by way of its judgments has warned the
courts from proceeding against the relatives and
in-laws of the husband when no prima facie caseis made out against them.”
6. Another decision of the Apex Court reported in
Subba Rao K. and Others v. State of Telangana
represented by its Secretary, Department of Home
and Others [2018 KHC 6225] also has been pressed into
to ascertain the same point.
7. Dispelling the argument at the instance of the
learned counsel for the petitioner, it is pointed out by the
learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/de facto complainant
that the sum and substance of the contention raised by the
petitioner herein, who is the 6 th accused, as could be read
out from paragraph No.3 of the Crl.M.C. is that his role in
the marriage between the 1st accused and de facto
complainant is confined to that of providing his residential
house for the purpose of making arrangement for the
Crl.M.C.No.5144 of 2023
8
2024:KER:97710
wedding which was held at the St.Thomas Orthodox
Church, Kallissery. But the said contention prima facie is
not believable. In this connection, the learned counsel for
the 3rd respondent/de facto complainant pointed out the
averments in paragraph 3 of the complaint which would
reiterate that the de facto complainant resided at the
residence of the 6th accused after the marriage, and
thereafter also. He also pointed out the statement given by
CW4 Sasikala, who is the neighbour of the 6 th accused to
the effect that the marriage fixation ceremony of the de
facto complainant with the 1st accused was solemnized at
the house of the 6th accused and she participated along
with family but she didn’t attend the wedding. According
to CW4, after the wedding, the 1 st accused along with the
3rd respondent/de facto complainant resided at the house of
the 6th accused for 2-3 days, and thereafter for 4-5 days, 2-
3 months before giving statement in this case. CW4 had
given statement further that the 1st accused and the de
Crl.M.C.No.5144 of 2023
9
2024:KER:97710
facto complainant stayed at the house of the 6 th accused
and there were noisy exchanges of words during the stay.
The learned counsel also took the attention of this Court to
the statement of CW5 another neighbour Rema, who gave
statement before the police in similar terms as that of
CW4. According to the learned counsel for the 3 rd
respondent/de facto complainant, filing of the divorce OP
by the 1st accused was known to the de facto complainant
since she received notice thereof only during the month of
September, 2022 as evident from Anneuxre-R3(g) filed
along with the objection. Therefore, the allegation that
complaint was filed only after knowing pendency of OP for
divorce is false.
8. The learned Public Prosecutor shared the argument
of the learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent/de facto
complainant and read out the averments of the complaint
which would constitute prima facie materials to show
commission of offences by the 6th accused also.
Crl.M.C.No.5144 of 2023
10
2024:KER:97710
9. Admittedly the marriage between the 1 st accused
and the de facto complainant was solemnized on
01.11.2021 at St.Thomas Orthodox Church, Kallissery as
per Christian religious rites. Entrustment of Rs.10,00,000/-
and 32 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of
marriage is the allegation of the de facto complainant.
According to the de facto complainant, after a short stay in
Kerala, after the marriage, she resided along with the 1 st
accused in Bangalore. During the stay with the 1 st accused,
in Bangalore, he made complaint regarding insufficiency of
money and gold ornaments given, and thereby she was
abused. According to the de facto complainant, it was
stated by the 3rd accused that, if her son would have
married another lady, he would have obtained
Rs.25,00,000/- as dowry and on 03.03.2022 accused
Nos.1,3, 4 and 5 jointly physically manhandled the de facto
complainant. Further accused Nos. 1 and 5 jointly took
away the mobile phone of the de facto complainant and
Crl.M.C.No.5144 of 2023
11
2024:KER:97710
thereby she was restrained from contacting her parents or
brother in any manner.
10. The crucial question to be addressed in this matter
is as to whether the prosecution records would justify the
commission of offences under Section 498-A read with
Sections 323, 324, 143 and 149 of IPC by the petitioner
herein, who is the 6th accused and the maternal uncle of the
1st accused?. The argument advanced by the learned
counsel for the petitioner/ 6 th accused is that the one and
only instance which would show the involvement of the
petitioner in the marriage is the participation in the
marriage as well as providing of his residence for the
purpose of preparation of marriage which was solemnized
at St.Thomas Orthodox Church, Kallissery. It is specifically
pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
apart from the above, the petitioner has no role. Whereas,
as could be noticed from the statement of the de facto
complainant and pointed out by the learned counsel for the
Crl.M.C.No.5144 of 2023
12
2024:KER:97710
3rd respondent and learned Public Prosecutor, the allegation
is that as on 30.06.2022 when the de facto complainant
reached the matrimonial home, on relief from her
employment, the accused persons manhandled and
commanded the de facto complainant to go out from the
house. Thereafter she was taken to the house of the 6 th
accused on 02.07.2022. During the stay of the de facto
complainant at the house of the 6 th accused also, the
accused persons physically assaulted her and the 6 th
accused also assaulted her and called a ‘prostitute’. Apart
from the statement of the de facto complainant, on reading
the statements of CW4 Sasikala and CW5 Rema, it could be
seen that the de facto complainant along with the 1 st
accused resided at the house of the 6th accused for 2-3
days after the wedding and thereafter they went to
Bangalore. However, 2- 3 months before giving statements
by CW4 and CW5, the de facto complainant resided at the
house of the 6th accused for 4 or 5 days and there were
Crl.M.C.No.5144 of 2023
13
2024:KER:97710
noisy exchanges of words during the stay. Thus the
contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner
confining the role of the petitioner in attending the wedding
and also providing his house for the purpose of preparation
of the wedding is not correct and the available materials
would show persecution and harassment at the instance of
the petitioner/6th accused also.
11. It is the trite law that in the cases where the
relatives of the husband are being roped into criminal
cases, alleging offence under Section 498-A without
support of sufficient materials prima facie to see their
involvement ; such actions should be deprecated and dealt
appropriately. However, while addressing the question as
to whether the relative of the husband subjected the wife
to physical and mental cruelty or harassment demanding
the dowry or otherwise as dealt under Section 498-A
explanation (a) and (b), the said allegations to be made
out from the prosecution records, prima facie. If so, the
Crl.M.C.No.5144 of 2023
14
2024:KER:97710
relative is also liable to be prosecuted and quashment of
the said proceedings could not be opted. In the instant
case, prima facie the prosecution allegations are made out,
against the petitioner, warranting trial and therefore, the
quashment sought for is liable to fail.
12. In view of the above, quashment sought for is
disallowed and the petition stands dismissed. Interim order
of stay shall stand vacated.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to
the jurisdictional court concerned for information and
further steps.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
MJL
Crl.M.C.No.5144 of 2023
15
2024:KER:97710
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5144/2023
PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES:
Annexure A-1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY
THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT BEFORE THE
STATION HOUSE OFFICER OF THIRUVALLA
POLICE STATION DATED 11-03-2022Annexure A-2 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
RECEIPT OF PETITION NO. 44849 OF 2022
ISSUED FROM THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION
DATED 11-03-2022Annexure A-3 TRUE COPY OF ENTRY IN THE COMPLAINT
REGISTER ISSUED TO THE DEFACTO
COMPLAINANT ON APPLICATION PREFERRED BY
THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT
DATED 29-03-2022Annexure A-4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT GIVEN BY THE
1ST ACCUSED BEFORE THE STATION HOUSE
OFFICER, THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION
DATED 01-07-2022Annexure A-5 TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION MADE BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT
DATED 02-07-2022.
Annexure A-6 TRUE COPY OF THE ENTRY MADE IN THE
REGISTER AS OBTAINED UNDER THE RIGHT TO
INFORMATION ACT BY THE 1ST ACCUSEDAnnexure A-7 TRUE COPY OF O.P. (DIV) NO. 1061 OF
2022 FILED BY THE 1ST ACCUSED BEFORE
THE FAMILY COURT, MAVELIKKARAAnnexure A-8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT AS DEFACTO COMPLAINANT
IN C.M.P. NO. 1202 OF 2022 BEFORE THE
JFCM COURT-I, THIRUVALLA DATED
29-07-2022
Crl.M.C.No.5144 of 2023
162024:KER:97710
Annexure A-9 TRUE COPY OF FIR NO.1444 OF 2022 DATED 03-
08-2022 OF THIRUVALLA POLICEAnnexure A-10 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 25-08-2022 IN
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 3647 OF
2022 OF THE HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT
PATHANAMTHITTAAnnexure A-11 TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT FILED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JFCM COURT THIRUVALLA
ON 26-12-2022Annexure A-12 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN SUBBA RAO K. VS.
STATE OF TELUNGANA REPORTED IN 2018 KHC
6625Annexure A-13 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN KAHKASHAN KAUSAR @
SONAM VS. STATE OF BIHAR [2022 KHC 6153RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES:
Annexure R3(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY UNDER THE RIGHT TO
INFORMATION ACT, 2005 WITH NO. 103/RTI/21-
22/T DATED 22.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE
THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION TO SHIBU SARA
BABUAnnexure R3(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY UNDER THE RIGHT TO
INFORMATION ACT, 2005 WITH NO. 105/RTI/21-
22/T DATED 29.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE
THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION TO SHIBU SARA
BABUAnnexure R3(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE NON-DATED COMPLAINT
PREFERRED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE
STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THIRUVALLA POLICE
STATION OBTAINED UNDER THE RIGHT TO
INFORMATION ACT, 2005Annexure R3(d) A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT
DATED 15.07.2022, ISSUED BY THE THIRUVALLA
POLICE STATION TO THE 3RD RESPONDENTAnnexure R3(e) A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION PREFERRED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER THE RIGHT TO
Crl.M.C.No.5144 of 2023
172024:KER:97710
INFORMATION ACT, 2005 BEFORE THE CIRCLE
INSPECTOR, CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION DATED
19.08.2023Annexure R3(f) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED
19.09.2023,UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION
ACT, 2005, RECEIVED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
FROM THE CHENGANNUR POLICE STATIONAnnexure R3(g) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 04.08.2022 IN
OP (DIV) NO: 1061/2022 ISSUED FROM THE
HON’BLE FAMILY COURT, MAVELIKKARA AND
RECEIVED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENTAnnexure R3(h) A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE STATION HOUSE
OFFICER, THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION DATED
22.07.2022Annexure R3(i) A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
26.08.2023, PREFERRED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005
BEFORE THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, THIRUVALLA
POLICE STATIONAnnexure R3(j) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 26.09.2023
UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005
RECEIVED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FROM THE
THIRUVALLA POLICE STATIONAnnexure R3(k) A TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
IN CRIME NO: 1142/2023 OF MAVELIKKARA
POLICE STATION, DATED 27.10.2023Annexure R3(l) A TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
IN CRIME NO: 1143/2023 OF MAVELIKKARA
POLICE STATION, DATED 27.10.2023