Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1503 (KER)

Leelama v. Riji K. D/o Rapparyi

2025-05-28

G.GIRISH

body2025
ORDER : 1. The petitioners are accused Nos.2 to 4 in C.C. No. 3215 of 2020 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Chalakudy. They have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , to quash the proceedings against them in the said case. The crime relates to the alleged matrimonial cruelty meted out to the 1 st respondent. The 1 st accused is the husband of the defacto complainant. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the Mother and Father of the 1 st accused. The 4 th accused is the sister of the 1 st accused. 2. The defacto complainant preferred Annexure A1-complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Chalakudy, alleging that her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-law have been subjecting her to mental cruelty coming under the purview of 498A IPC . The said complaint was forwarded to the Station House Officer, Chalakudy, under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, Annexure A2-FIR has been registered in respect of the offences under Sections 498A , 354 , 323 and 294 (b) IPC . After the completion of the investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police, Chalakudy, laid the Final Report in respect of the aforesaid offences against the four accused. 3. In the present petition filed by accused Nos.2 to 4, it is contended that the Final Report and the accompanying records, even if accepted as such, will not constitute the offence alleged against the petitioners. It is also challenged in this petition that the requirement to comply with Sections 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C. has not been followed in the filing of the complaint. For the above reasons, the petitioners seek the intervention of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the proceedings against them. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the 2 nd petitioner, who has been arraigned as the 3 rd accused, is no more, and hence he is confining the arguments for and on behalf of petitioners 1 and 3 alone. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the 2 nd petitioner, who has been arraigned as the 3 rd accused, is no more, and hence he is confining the arguments for and on behalf of petitioners 1 and 3 alone. The learned counsel for the petitioners, by adverting to the various paragraphs of Annexure A1-complaint, submitted that, apart from omnibus allegations, there is nothing in the complaint to bring out the requirements of Section 498A IPC . Per contra, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant submitted that the averments in paragraph Nos.2, 6 and 7 are enough to show that the petitioners herein were also involved in the commission of the aforesaid offences. 6. In paragraph No.2 of Annexure A1-complaint, the defacto complainant would allege that after one week from her marriage, the accused started persistently torturing her physically and mentally, stating that the gold and money received from her paternal home are not sufficient. It is apparent from the aforesaid allegation that it is of general and superficial nature, without stating any specific incident of physical or mental cruelty on the part of accused Nos.2 and 4. In paragraph No.6 of the complaint, it is alleged that the accused took the defacto complainant to a psychiatrist in their attempt to make it appear that she was having some mental ailments. There is the further allegation that it is under the instigation of the 4 th accused, who works as a Government Nurse, that the above effort was made by the other accused. Again in paragraph No.7, there is the general allegation that all the accused subjected the defacto complainant to cruelty for the insufficient dowry brought by her, and also stating that the 1 st accused would have got other good looking girls. 7. It is well settled that general omnibus allegations against the in-laws cannot be the basis to institute criminal prosecution against them in offences of matrimonial cruelty. As far as the present case is concerned, the allegations against accused Nos.2 and 4 are apparently of superficial and general nature. 7. It is well settled that general omnibus allegations against the in-laws cannot be the basis to institute criminal prosecution against them in offences of matrimonial cruelty. As far as the present case is concerned, the allegations against accused Nos.2 and 4 are apparently of superficial and general nature. Going by the law laid down by the Apex Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, 2024 KHC 6688 and Digambar v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 KHC 6737 , courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with complaints against the relatives of the husband with regard to the matrimonial cruelty attributed by the defacto complainant. Such allegations are to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection taking into account the pragmatic realities. As far as the present case is concerned, I am of the view that the allegations levelled against petitioners 1 and 3 (accused Nos.2 and 4) by the defacto complainant, are not sufficient to initiate prosecution proceedings against them in connection with the commission of offence under Section 498A IPC . Therefore, the proceedings against the aforesaid accused are liable to be quashed. 8. In the result, the Crl. M.C. stands allowed in part as follows:- The proceedings against petitioners 1 and 3 (accused Nos. 2 and 4) in C.C. No.3215 of 2020 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Chalakudy, are hereby quashed.