Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1625 (KER)

Gishnu S/o Baburaj v. State of Kerala

2025-06-10

G.GIRISH

body2025
ORDER : G.GIRISH, J. The petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.740/2024 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Koyilandy, which arose out of Crime No.332/2024 of Elathur Police Station, Kozhikode. The offences alleged against them are under Sections 498A & 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , (in short, ‘ IPC '). The offences relate to the alleged matrimonial cruelty perpetrated upon the de facto complainant by the first petitioner, who is her husband, and accused Nos.2, 3 & 4, who are respectively her mother-in-law, brother-in-law and wife of brother-in-law. It is alleged that ever since the marriage between the first petitioner and the de facto complainant on 03.02.2019, she was being subjected to mental cruelty by the petitioners. There is also the allegation that the petitioners misappropriated 63 sovereigns of gold ornaments which the de facto complainant obtained at the time of her marriage. 2. In the present petition, the petitioners would contend that even if the allegations levelled against them are accepted on face value, it will not constitute the offences alleged against them. It is further contended that even before the marriage, the de facto complainant was undergoing treatment for psychiatric illness, and that the marriage was performed suppressing the above illness of the de facto complainant. According to the petitioners, they made all efforts to get the de facto complainant cured of her illness by providing treatment for her at the Government Medical College, Calicut. It is stated that despite the petitioners’ best efforts to provide appropriate treatment, the de facto complainant’s mental illness showed no significant improvement. In the above circumstances, the first petitioner is said to have issued a legal notice to the de facto complainant on 27.03.2024, for the dissolution of his marriage with her. It is stated that the de facto complainant preferred the present complaint thereafter as an act of reprisal to the aforesaid legal notice issued by the first petitioner. For the above reason, the petitioners seek the quashment of the proceedings against them by invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 . 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala. 4. For the above reason, the petitioners seek the quashment of the proceedings against them by invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 . 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala. 4. The Elathur Police of Kozhikode District, registered this crime on 17.04.2024 on the basis of the First Information Statement (FIS) which the de facto complainant gave on that date. It is stated in the above said FIS that the second petitioner compelled the de facto complainant to undergo psychiatric treatment for the reason that on one occasion, she was found to be playing with children near her house. Another allegation in the above statement is that the petitioners subjected the de facto complainant to mental cruelty by saying that she was not good looking, and that the first petitioner would have got a better marriage relationship. Further allegation raised by the de facto complainant is that the petitioners did not give back her 63 sovereigns of gold ornaments which she was having at the time of marriage. In the further statements given by the de facto complainant to the Investigating Officer also, she had not stated anything in specific about the mental cruelty alleged to have been perpetrated by the petitioners. There is only a vague and superficial allegation that she was subjected to insult by the petitioners by stating that she was not good looking, and that the first petitioner would have got a better alliance. It is true that the de facto complainant had stated to the Investigating Officer that she was subjected to psychiatric treatment by the petitioners for the silly reason that she had joined the children of the nearby locality for playing shuttle badminton. However, the medical records produced by the petitioners as Annexures- A3 to A5 would go to show that the de facto complainant was having subsisting mental illness which commenced even before her marriage with the first petitioner. Therefore, the act of the petitioners getting the de facto complainant treated for her mental illness, cannot be termed as a cruelty done upon her. Therefore, the act of the petitioners getting the de facto complainant treated for her mental illness, cannot be termed as a cruelty done upon her. The allegation of insult meted out to the de facto complainant by the petitioners, is too superficial and vague that it is not possible to say that it would amount to the mental cruelty as envisaged under Section 498A IPC . Furthermore, the medical records produced by the petitioners as Annexures-A3 to A5 would reveal that the de facto complainant was having low stress tolerance, emotional disregulations, and perceptual abnormalities. Thus, the allegation of mental insult attributed to the petitioners by the de facto complainant can be the offshoot of the above mental ailment being suffered by her. At any rate, it would be totally unsafe and improper to come to a finding that the sweeping and superficial statements given by the de facto complainant would constitute the offence of mental cruelty envisaged under Section 498A IPC . As regards the misappropriation of 63 sovereigns of gold ornaments, it is pertinent to note that the de facto complainant had not given the particulars of the aforesaid allegation. The de facto complainant has not at all stated about the specifications of the gold ornaments allegedly taken away by the petitioners. Nor had the de facto complainant stated the date when her gold ornaments were entrusted with the petitioners, and the point of time when the aforesaid gold ornaments were misappropriated by the petitioners. In the absence of details with regard to the misappropriation alleged by her, it is not possible to say that the offence under Section 406 IPC is brought out. Therefore, the commission of the offence under Section 406 IPC is also not established from the prosecution records. In that view of the matter, the request of the petitioners to quash the proceedings against them, deserves favourable consideration. In the result, the petition stands allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners (accused Nos.1 to 4) in C.C.No.740/2024 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Koyilandy, which arose out of Crime No.332/2024 of Elathur Police Station, Kozhikode, are hereby quashed.