This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed seeking quashment of Annexure I FIR, Annexure II final report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto, in C.C.No.291 2013 on the files of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chavakkad. The case on hand is one where allegations of harassment by close relatives of the husband have been raised unwarrantly in a dispute between the couple to give colour and vigour. A narration of the facts in succinct, necessary for the disposal of this case would unravel the aforesaid position.
2. The first accused in the above calender case and the first respondent herein are husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnised at Guruvayoor Sree Krishna Temple as per the custom prevalent in Hindu Community, on 9.9.2010. After the marriage the couple lived in the matrimonial home for a very few days and thereafter they went to Gulf Countries, on 27.9.2010, in connection with their employment. The first respondent, the wife of the first accused thereafter complained that she was subjected to cruelty by her husband and his close relatives and complaint in that regard was lodged at Guruvayoor Police Station, on 19.10.2012. Since the first respondent resides within the jurisdiction of Chavakkad Police Station it was transmitted to the said police station and thereafter she was summoned to take further statement. Accordingly, she gave Annexure-II statement on 5.11.2012. Based on the said statement given by her on 5.11.2012 Crime No.1299 of 2012 was registered against her husband and the petitioners herein. Petitioners 1 to 3 herein respectively are the father, mother and sister of the husband of the first respondent and the 4th petitioner is the husband of the 3rd petitioner. Subsequently, cognizance was taken and it was registered and numbered as C.C.No.291 of 2013 on the files of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chavakkad. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.2 to 5 therein. The first accused is the husband of the first respondent, the defacto complainant. Annexure- I is the FIR registered in the said crime and Annexure-II is the final report along with other statements and documents filed in the aforesaid crime. Going by the allegations in Annexure-I FIR the marriage between the first accused and the defacto complainant/the first respondent was conducted on 9.9.2010 in accordance with the religious rites and while they were living as husband and wife in Gulf Countries and also at the matrimonial home of the first respondent at Chakkamkandath accused 1 to 5 told them that gold and money were not adequately given and demanded more money and for making her to bring more gold and money that purpose subjected her to cruelty, both mentally and physically. Virtually, Annexure-II contains Annexure-I FIR, the final report and all other documents in connection with the aforesaid crime including the seizure mahazar, the statement dated 5.11.2012 recorded from the first respondent and the other statements and documents. Conspicuously, the statement of the first respondent allegedly recorded on 19.10.2012 by Guruvayoor Police is not included in Annexure-II. Going by the allegations in the statement recorded from her dated 5.11.2012 which actually led to the registration of the aforesaid crime the marriage between the first accused and the first respondent was held at Guruvayoor Sree Krishna Temple in accordance with the Hindu religious rites on 9.9.2010. The marriage was registered at Guruvayoor Municipality on 14.9.2010. In fact, the said marriage was bigamy as regards the first accused and also the first respondent. It is further stated therein that at the time of marriage the parents of the first respondent gave 125 sovereigns of gold ornaments and on the third day of their marriage the first accused and the petitioners herein compelled her to put all the gold ornaments in the locker. According to the first respondent, she told them that there is no need to take a locker as her father got a locker in a bank and later, she was made to hand over 111 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the husband and his parents for the purpose of starting Agricultural and Chicken Farms. Even according to the first respondent, on 27.9.2010 she left for Gulf Countries along with her husband, the first accused. It is also her allegation that at that point of time, for the purpose of changing the sponsorship the husband obtained ` 25,000 from her. She alleges that after returning to Gulf Countries her husband remained idle and he did not go for any job. The further allegations are thus:-
The first respondent obtained a job in an American Company for a salary of 9500 Dirham and she used to give ` 1,00,000 to her husband for the purpose of sending it to his parents. In the meanwhile, she became pregnant. The husband had not given any consideration even then and continued to torture her physically and mentally. After the birth of a son, for the purpose of conducting a ritualistic function of their son they came back to the native place and she had to borrow an amount of 10000 Dirham from her sister Aparna for the purpose. When she demanded return of the gold ornaments entrusted with the husband for the purpose of arranging the amount she borrowed from her sister, the first accused and in-laws treated her cruelly. She was locked in a room and she was not given any food. On 15.11.2011 the mother-in-law, the second petitioner herein pulled her hands while she was feeding the child. The allegation about the mother-in-law in Annexure-II reads thus:-
ആണ'നണങ)ല ഇവള .ന/ കയ)ല ന)ന .3 തനയ .ന/ N Lറ)വ)റ) വ'ങ)ന9'ണ; വര.വ'ന പറനയ/', ഇവ)ന/ സ.ഖ)ച;
കഴ)ഞ'ല അവള ക'ശ; വ'ങ)നക'ണ; വര .ന*ന;
വ)ച'ര)9 .ന.ണണ'' എന; ഭര/'വ)ണന'/; പറയ.കയ.3 ആയത.ണകട; ഭര/'വ; എന" വയറ)ല ചവ)ട.കയ.3, ത./രന;
എന)9; }ഡ)3ഗ; ഉണ'വ .കയ.3 ഞ'ന അമനയ വ)ള)ച .
വര./) എന" വ$ട)ണ69; ണപ'വ.കയ.3 നചയ;ത..”
The allegation against the 4th petitioner, the brother-in-law of the first respondent is that on 16.1.2012 while they were in the Gulf Countries he came to their flat and picked up a quarrel with her for not transferring the registration certificate of her car in the name of her husband. The allegation against him in Annexure-II reads thus:-
“16.1.2012 ത$യത) അന)6)ന" സണ8'ദര) ഭര/'വ; ഞങള .ന/ flat-ല വര)കയ .3 എന" ണപര)6 .ള ക'റ; ര L ]ന"
ണപര)ണ69; *'റ'/ത)ന" ണപര)ല എണന'/; വഴ9)/ .കയ.3 “നപണ ണക'നന ങ)ല ന)ന" കയ)ന" ച</; *നസ)6'9) നക'/.ന9/'” എന; പറഞ; ഇറങ)ണ>'വ.കയ.3 നചയ;ത..”
True that, against the first accused, the husband, the first respondent had raised various allegations. Since he is not a party to this proceedings I do not propose to make any observation with respect to them. At the same time, a scanning of Annexure-II and the statement recorded from the first respondent dated 5.11.2012 would reveal that the only specific allegations raised against the 2nd and 4th petitioners are as extracted above. A careful scrutiny of Annexure-II complaint would reveal that there is absolute absence of any specific allegation against the 1st and 3rd petitioners who are respectively the father-in-law and sister-in-law of the first respondent. It is based on the aforesaid complaint that Crime No.1299 of 2012 was registered at Chavakkad Police Station under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and the first accused.
3. As noticed hereinbefore, this Crl.M.C. has been filed seeking quashment of Annexure-I F.I.R., Annexure-II final report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto, in the aforementioned calendar case. It is the contention of the petitioners that even if the entire allegations revealed from Annexures-I and II are taken in their entirety they would not constitute an offence under Section 498A as against them. Petitioners 1 and 2 are the aged parents of the first accused, the 3rd petitioner is his sister and the 4th petitioner is the husband of the third petitioner. It is their contention that they were unnecessarily dragged in the proceedings with an ulterior motive on the part of the first respondent. It is also their case that the crime was registered against them without properly analysing the statement and according to them, based on the statement recorded from the first respondent on 5.11.2012 they would not have been implicated in the aforesaid crime. This case was admitted on 7.5.2013 and notice was issued to the first respondent. Though notice was served on the first respondent she did not choose to enter appearance to resist the case.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. After referring to the allegations contained in the statement made by the first respondent on 5.11.2012 which formed the basis for the registration of the aforesaid crime the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that continuance of the criminal prosecution against them based on Annexures I and II would tantamount to abuse of process of court. It is further contended that a bare perusal of the allegations therein would reveal that they are not sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 498A IPC and in fact, they were implicated as accused only with a view to harass them. There is absolute absence of any specific allegation in Annexure-II. In the said context, the petitioners relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Preethi Gupta v. State of Jharkhand ((2010) 7 SCC 667). That was a case wherein the complainant Manisha Poddar was married to Kamal Poddar at Kanpur and their marriage was held on 10.12.2006. Immediately after their marriage she left for Mumbai along with her husband. On reaching there she joined at Tata Consultancy Services, Mumbai. Later, she filed a complaint on 8.7.2007 alleging commission of offences under sections 498-A, 406, 341, 323 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against all immediate relations of her husband. Subsequently, the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and passed an order summoning them. The appellants in that case approached the High Court seeking quashment of the complaint contending that no specific allegations were raised against them and therefore, they ought not have been summoned. The High Court of Bombay declined to interfere with the complaint and it is in the said circumstances that the Crl. Appeal was preferred before he Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court considered the question whether High Court was justified in not exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the facts and circumstances of the case. Taking note of the factual situation obtained in that case the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that consistently the Apex Court has been taking the view that the extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be used to prevent injustice and also to secure ends of justice. After referring to various judicial authorities including the judgments in R.P.Kapur v. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866), State of Karnataka v.
L.Muniswamy and Others ((1977) 2 SCC 699), Madhu Limaye v. The State of Maharashtra ((1977) 4 SCC 551), Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindla and Others v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Others ((1988) 1 SCC 692), State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others (1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335) and G.Sagar Suri and Another v. State of UP and Others ((2000) 2 SCC 636) the Hon'ble Apex Court restated the consistent and constant view in regard to the subject of exercise of the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Apex Court further opined that it is common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation has been rapidly increasing in our country and it is a matter of common experience that most of the complaints under Section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. It is also observed that at the time of filing of most of the complaints the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainants and therefore, such complaints could lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. It was further held that the ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of the complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been
living in different cities and had never visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion, it is observed. After making detailed consideration of such aspects and the relevant authorities, in the light of the facts obtained in that case, the Hon'ble Apex court held that it would unfair to compel the appellants to undergo the rigmarole of a criminal trial and thought it fit to quash the complaint against the appellants. Consequently, the order of the trial court was set aside and the appeal was allowed. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the facts obtained in that case is more or less the same as obtained in this case. It is contended by the learned counsel that even going by the contention of the first respondent the marriage between herself and the first accused was solemnised on 9.9.2010 and on 27.9.2010 itself she left for Gulf Countries along with her husband. Thus, it is evident that immediately after the marriage she lived in the matrimonial home hardly for a very few days and thereafter, left for Gulf Countries along with her husband. According to the statement recorded from her on 5.11.2012 she came back to India and to the native place thereafter, for the purpose of performing a ritualistic function of her son in 2011. The only allegation which she raised against the mother-in-law, the 2nd petitioner is that on 15.11.2011 while the child was being fed with milk she pulled her hands. The allegation against the brother-in-law, the 4th petitioner is that while she was living along with her husband in the Gulf Countries on 16.1.2012 he came to the flat and quarrelled with her for not changing the documents of a car registered in her name in favour of her husband. The said allegations in Annexure-II have been extracted earlier. A scanning of the said averments would undoubtedly reveal that they cannot be treated as incidents of cruelty so as to form basis for accusation of offence under Section 498-A IPC against the 2nd and 4th petitioners and consequently, the basis of prosecution against them. A perusal of the said statement dated 5.11.2012 would reveal that no specific allegations were made against the 1st and 3rd petitioners who are none other than father-in-law and sister-in-law of the first respondent. In fact, there is absolute absence of any allegation against the sister-in-law. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the father-in-law of the first respondent is presently aged 72 and he is afflicted with renal cancer. Evidently, the 3rd petitioner is residing with her husband and there is absolute absence of any specific allegation against her in Annexure-II. Despite such facts evidently, they were dragged into those proceedings and they were made to face a criminal prosecution. As regards the 2nd and 4th petitioners, who are respectively the mother-in-law and the brother-in-law of the first respondent, I have already adverted to the allegations made by the first respondent in the statement given by her. True that some vague allegations have been raised by her that immediately after the marriage viz., on the 3rd day itself the parents of the first accused and her husband himself asked her to place all the gold ornaments in the locker of a bank. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the photographs allegedly sent by the first respondent herself available in page Nos.35 to 51 of the memorandum of criminal miscellaneous case I do not think it necessary to look into and make comments on them. I am of the view that the views expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision in Preethi Gupta's case (supra) would squarely apply to the facts of this case. A scanning of the allegations as aforementioned would reveal that the allegations of harassment by the petitioners were made without any basis and even if they are taken in their entirety as true and correct they would not constitute an offence under Section 498 IPC, as against them. It is sad that the father-in-law who is now a septuagenarian and ailing from the dreaded disease of cancer is drawn unnecessarily to the litigation. It may be true that the bickering between the husband and wife has reached up to a stage making them difficult to live under the same roof and they may be inclined to part their ways. But, that cannot be a reason for unnecessarily dragging the close relations of the husband and making them to face criminal proceedings. Without stating anything regarding the circumstances the only allegation raised against the mother-in-law is that she pulled the hands of the first respondent while she was giving milk to her son. The allegation raised against the brother-in-law, the 4th petitioner is also a silly one. It is not discernible from the allegations as to what made him, if at all he made, to say that the documents of the car should be given in favour of the first accused, the husband of the first respondent. No other allegations are raised against him. In such circumstances, in view of the legal principles set out in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Preethi Gupta's case (supra) I am of the view that it would be absolutely unfair to compel the petitioners to face the trial. In the interest of justice termination of the criminal prosecution against them by invoking the inherent jurisdiction is called for.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-I FIR and Annexure-II final report and all further proceedings against the petitioners who are accused Nos.2 to 5 in C.C.No.291 2013 pending before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chavakkad are quashed.
TKS Sd/-
C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge