Valsala Vs. State of Kerala

Valsala vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Apr 04, 2014

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1137023

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1137023
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice K.Vinod Chandran
Decided On: Apr 04, 2014
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Valsala

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....against this petitioner, that she had at any point of time aided or abetted the commission of offence by the 1st accused. there is no crl.m.c. no. 1989/2014 -2- allegation that this petitioner was also with the 1st accused and that she assisted a1 to kidnap the victim.4. the only other charge is under section 506(i) of ipc. a casual and imprecise statement is there that this accused had threatened the complainant that she should not insist the 1st accused to marry her. such a casual statement, even if it is accepted as true, cannot attract the offence under section 506(i) of ipc.5. on going through the final report and the memorandum of evidence, there is nothing to indicate that this petitioner had caused criminal intimidation to the victim. even if it is assumed that this petitioner had told the victim that she should not insist the 1st accused to marry her, it cannot be said that it will attract the offence of criminal intimidation. in the absence of any other material, it is inconceivable how this petitioner can be asked to face trial along with a1 who stands charged for the offences crl.m.c. no. 1989/2014 -3- under section 366 and 376 of ipc. even in the statement of the victim recorded by the learned magistrate, nothing was stated to implicate the petitioner herein. hence, i find that proceedings against this petitioner would be an exercise in futility.6. in the result, this petition is allowed. further proceedings against this petitioner in c.p. no.147/2013 of judicial first class magistrate court-i, harippad, is quashed. the court below will proceed against the 1st accused in accordance with law. sd/- n.k. balakrishnan, judge //true copy// p.a. to judge jjj

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE4H DAY OF APRIL201414TH CHAITHRA, 1936 Crl.MC.No. 1989 of 2014 --------------------------- CP NO. 147/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT I, HARIPPAD CRIME NO. 34/2013 OF KANAKAKUNNU POLICE STATION , ALAPPUZHA .... PETITIONER(S)/2ND ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------ VALSALA, AGED49YEARS, W/O.VIJAYAN NAIR, V V NIVAS, THACHOORKUNNU, AVANAVANCHERY P O, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESDENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 680 001.

3. ATHIRA ANAND, AGED20YEARS, D/O.REMA, KARUKASSERIL HOUSE, PUTHIYAVILA, KANDALLUR, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT -690 502. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0404-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYPASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss Crl.MC.No. 1989 of 2014 ------------------------------------ APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)'ANNEXURES: -------------------------------------------- ANNEX.A1:-TRUE COPY OF THE F I R IN CRIME NO342013 OF KANAKAKKUNNU POLICE STATION. ANNEX.A2:-TRUE COPY OF THE161STATEMENT OF THE3D RESPONDENT DTD241/2013. ANNEX.A3:-TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE KANAKAKKUNNU POLICE DTD241/2013. ANNEX.A4:-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER

OF JFMC I, HARIPPAD DTD241/2013. ANNEX.A5:-TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE3D RESPONDENT BEFORE JFMC I , HARIPPAD DTD281/2013. ANNEX.A6:-TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE3D RESPONDENT DTD62/2013. ANNEX.A7:-TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE3D RESPONDENT DTD172/2013. ANNEX.A8:-TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE3D RESPONDENT DTD1211/2013. ANNEX.A9:-TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE CW7 DTD122/2013. ANNEX.A10:-TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE CW8 DTD122/2013. ANNEX.A11:-TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE CW9 DTD1211/2013. ANNEX.A12:-TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT. RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: ---------------------------------------------- N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J.

------------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No. 1989 of 2014 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of April, 2014 ORDER

The petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.34/2013 of Kanakakkunnu Police Station, which is now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Harippad as C.P.No.147/2013. Charge Sheet was laid by the Police alleging commission of offences under sections 363, 376 and 506(i) r/w 34 of IPC.

2. The allegation is that the complainant/victim was kidnapped and raped. The main allegation is against the 1st accused. The 2nd accused is the mother of the 1st accused.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on going through the entire records, it can be seen that there is absolutely no allegation against this petitioner, that she had at any point of time aided or abetted the commission of offence by the 1st accused. There is no Crl.M.C. No. 1989/2014 -2- allegation that this petitioner was also with the 1st accused and that she assisted A1 to kidnap the victim.

4. The only other charge is under section 506(i) of IPC. A casual and imprecise statement is there that this accused had threatened the complainant that she should not insist the 1st accused to marry her. Such a casual statement, even if it is accepted as true, cannot attract the offence under section 506(i) of IPC.

5. On going through the final report and the memorandum of evidence, there is nothing to indicate that this petitioner had caused criminal intimidation to the victim. Even if it is assumed that this petitioner had told the victim that she should not insist the 1st accused to marry her, it cannot be said that it will attract the offence of criminal intimidation. In the absence of any other material, it is inconceivable how this petitioner can be asked to face trial along with A1 who stands charged for the offences Crl.M.C. No. 1989/2014 -3- under section 366 and 376 of IPC. Even in the statement of the victim recorded by the learned Magistrate, nothing was stated to implicate the petitioner herein. Hence, I find that proceedings against this petitioner would be an exercise in futility.

6. In the result, this petition is allowed. Further proceedings against this petitioner in C.P. No.147/2013 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Harippad, is quashed. The Court below will proceed against the 1st accused in accordance with law. Sd/- N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A. to Judge jjj

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2014 Same Parties Valsala vs State of Kerala Same Subject Education Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice K.Vinod Chandran