Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 401 (KER)

JISHNU M S/o DILEEP KUMAR v. STATE OF KERALA

2025-02-28

C.JAYACHANDRAN

body2025
ORDER : Petitioners are accused nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.445/2022 of Feroke Police Staion, Kozhikode, which was originally taken on file as C.C.No.961/2022 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Kozhikode; and now made over to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – II (Mobile), Kozhikode as C.C.No.457/2024. The offences alleged are under Sections 498 A, read with Section 34 of the Penal Code . The petitioners seek quashment of the said crime and all further proceedings therefrom. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners; learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 1 st petitioner is the husband and petitioners 2 and 3 are the mother and father respectively. They are accused nos.1 to 3 respectively before the trial court. Learned counsel would invite the attention of this court to the chronology of events, which took place in the instant case. The marriage was solemnised on 30.08.2021 and on the very next day, 31.08.2021, the defacto complainant/wife was taken to her relative's house by her parents. According to the petitioners, the reason behind such shifting is the epileptic seizures of the defacto complainant/wife, which was suppressed from the notice of the petitioners before marriage. On 07.09.2021, Annexure-A6 notice was issued by the 1 st petitioner seeking the co-operation of the defacto complainant and her family to get the marriage adjudged void. On 11.09.2021, a complaint was preferred by the defacto complainant, produced at Annexure-A7, before the jurisdictional Inspector of Police, seeking his assistance to get back her gold ornaments and personal belongings. Learned counsel would emphasise that there is no whisper, whatsoever, with respect to any harassment meted out against the defacto complainant in Annexure-A7. Thereafter, Annexure-A8 agreement was entered into by and between the 1 st petitioner/husband and the defacto complainant/wife, which records the factum of return of gold ornaments, including the thali. The last paragraph of Annexure-A8 would record that no other belonging of the defacto complainant is remaining with the petitioner. In Annexure-A8 also, there is no whisper with respect to any harassment or the like against the defacto complainant. On 20.05.2022, the petitioner filed an Original Petition for nullity of marriage, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-A10. The last paragraph of Annexure-A8 would record that no other belonging of the defacto complainant is remaining with the petitioner. In Annexure-A8 also, there is no whisper with respect to any harassment or the like against the defacto complainant. On 20.05.2022, the petitioner filed an Original Petition for nullity of marriage, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-A10. Petitioners' counsel would explain that the same was filed when the defacto complainant failed to act in terms of Annexure-A8 agreement. It is true that, in Annexure-A10 Original Petition, certain allegations were made, which would affect the reputation of the defacto complainant. However, learned counsel for the petitioners would explain that such allegations were made on factual aspects, as revealed from a mobile phone left by the defacto complainant with the petitioners. It is upon getting notice in the said Original Petition that the defacto complainant came to realise that her mobile phone is with the petitioners and that her personal information have been gathered by the petitioners. It is in such circumstance that the petitioners chose to give an F.I.S and accordingly, Annexure-A1 F.I.R was registered on 06.08.2022. Learned counsel would submit that there is no bonafides, whatsoever, in the First Information Statement preferred by the defacto complainant. Thereupon, the learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to the F.I.S, to point out that the allegations therein are quite vague and omnibus, incapable of attracting the offence under Section 498 A of the Penal Code . On such premise, petitioner seeks Annexure-A1 F.I.R, Annexure-A2 Final Report, and all further proceedings in C.C.No.457/2024 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II (Mobile), Kozhikode to be quashed. Learned counsel would emphasise the aspect that the defacto complainant has stayed with the petitioners only for a day, which would also rule out the possibility of any harassment, whatsoever. 4. Learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent/defacto complainant would submit that there was no suppression of the epileptic problem of the defacto complainant from the notice of the petitioner. In support of that, he would hand over a copy of the WhatsApp chat between the 1 st petitioner and the defacto complainant; and referring to the date 05.07.2021, there is reference to the first aid to be given for seizures, whereas the marriage took place only on 30.08.2021. In support of that, he would hand over a copy of the WhatsApp chat between the 1 st petitioner and the defacto complainant; and referring to the date 05.07.2021, there is reference to the first aid to be given for seizures, whereas the marriage took place only on 30.08.2021. Learned counsel would submit that the F.I.S would disclose the offence alleged and it is too premature for this Court to quash the same, without relegating the parties for evidence before the trial court. 5. This application was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor as well. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court finds considerable merit in the instant Crl.M.C. As rightly canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, a reference to the chronology of events would clearly indicate that defacto complainant had no grievance of any harassment, whatsoever, until she received notice of Annexure-A10 Original Petition, seeking nullity of marriage. It is quite relevant to note that the defacto complainant stayed along with the 1 st petitioner/husband only for a day. The marriage took place on 30.08.2021 and the defacto complainant was shifted to a relative's house by her parents on 31.08.2021, which fact is not disputed before this Court. Within no time, Annexure-A6 notice was issued by the 1 st petitioner/husband on 07.09.2021, seeking co-operation to get the marriage declared void. This was followed by a complaint, Annexure-A7, preferred by the defacto complainant before the jurisdictional police seeking the assistance to get her belongings returned. Annexure-A7 was preferred on 11.09.2021, which was followed by Annexure-A8 agreement between the 1 st petitioner and the defacto complainant dated 13.09.2021. As rightly canvassed, there is no whisper, whatsoever, about any harassment by the 1 st petitioner, or for that matter the petitioners, against the defacto complainant in any of these proceedings. There is absolutely no record, whatsoever, to indicate that there was any harassment by the 1 st petitioner against the defacto complainant. There is no such reference in any chat or in any complaint or in an agreement by and between the 1 st petitioner and the defacto complainant. It could thus be seen that the F.I.S, forming part of Annexure-A1 F.I.R, is nothing but an afterthought, for which a specific reason is canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. There is no such reference in any chat or in any complaint or in an agreement by and between the 1 st petitioner and the defacto complainant. It could thus be seen that the F.I.S, forming part of Annexure-A1 F.I.R, is nothing but an afterthought, for which a specific reason is canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Annexure-A10 Original Petition for nullity of marriage was filed on 20.05.2022, which contains certain allegations touching the personal aspects of the defacto complainant. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, such details were gathered from the mobile phone of the defacto complainant, which was inadvertently left with the petitioners. It is upon seeing such allegations that - for the first time - the F.I.S was preferred and Annexure-A1 F.I.R was registered on 06.08.2022. This Court finds considerable force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard. 7. This Court also perused the F.I.S forming part of Annexure-A1 F.I.R. Allegations made therein to the effect that a sum of Rs.15 lakhs was demanded by the petitioners as dowry before the marriage and that the defacto complainant was left in the company of one of her relatives on the very next day of marriage, for the reason that the said amount of Rs.15 lakhs was not paid by the parents of the defacto complainant. Whereas, the petitioners' case is to the effect that the defacto complainant was taken to her relative's home by her parents only; and not by the petitioners, that too for reason of having revealed her epileptic issues. The further allegation that the life of the defacto complainant is spoiled due to the demand for dowry by the petitioners is quite general vague and ambiguous, especially taking note of the fact that the 1 st petitioner/defacto complainant have stayed together as husband and wife only for a day. The real cause of action, rather the reason for filing a case under Section 498 A, is reflected in the F.I.S itself, wherein the defacto complainant would make an allegation that her husband had taken her personal data and photos and had extended a threat that the same will be aired in public. This allegation in F.I.S would only synchronize with the petitioners' case that it was Annexure-A10 divorce petition, which actually triggered Annexure-A1 F.I.R containing false allegations. 8. This allegation in F.I.S would only synchronize with the petitioners' case that it was Annexure-A10 divorce petition, which actually triggered Annexure-A1 F.I.R containing false allegations. 8. This Court has perused the Final Report preferred by the Investigating Officer. What can be seen under the charge in Annexure-A2 Final Report is nothing but a reiteration of the allegations contained in the F.I.S. There is no supporting documents or statements, which would justify the conclusions arrived at by the Investigating Officer in Annexure-A2 Final Report. 9. In Dara Lakshmi Narayana and Others v. State of Telangana and Anothe r [ 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3682 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court frowned upon the conduct of the defacto complainant/wife coming up with a complaint under Section 498 A for the first time, after receipt of notice in the divorce petition preferred by the husband. The said judgment also holds that the complaints, which contains vague and omnibus allegations, which lacks bonafides has to be nipped at the bud. 10. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances, this Court is satisfied that Annexure-A1 F.I.R, Annexure-A2 Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.457/2024 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II (Mobile), Kozhikode are liable to be quashed. It is so done. This Crl.M.C. is allowed as indicated above.