IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD MONDAY,THE18H DAY OF AUGUST201427TH SRAVANA, 1936 Crl.MC.No. 1282 of 2013 () --------------------------- CC3692011 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, OTTAPPALAM CRIME NO. 339/2011 OF OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.2 TO7 -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. HUSSANKUTTY @ KUNHAPPU, S/O. UNNIAN, AGED70YEARS KORAMCHIRA VEEDU, KRISHNAPPADI NELLAYA, CHERPLASSERY,PALAKKAD.
2. AMINA ,W/O. HUSSAN KUTTY,,AGED60YEARS KORAMCHIRA VEEDU, KRISHNAPPADI NELLAYA, CHERPLASSERY,PALAKKAD.
3. KABIR AGED30YEARS S/O. HUSSAN KUTTY,KORAMCHIRAVEEDU, KRISHNAPPADI NELLAYA, CHERPLASSERY,PALAKKAD.
4. SAJILAAGED25YEARS W/O. KABIR, KORAMCHIRAVEEDU, KRISHNAPPADI NELLAYA, CHERPLASSERY,PALAKKAD.
5. HAMSA, S/O. HUSSAN KUTTY,AGED35YEARS KORAMCHIRA VEEDU, KRISHNAPPADI NELLAYA, CHERPLASSERY,PALAKKAD.
6. SAIRABANU AGED25YEARS W/O. UMMAR, KORAMCHIRA VEEDU, KRISHNAPPADI NELLAYA, CHERPLASSERY,PALAKKAD. BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KEALA ERNAKULAM-682031. (CRIME NO. 339/2011 OF OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION PALAKKAD DISTRICT) 2. JAMSEENA S/O. KODAKKATTIL BEEVIJA, KODAKKATTIL, R.S. ROAD OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD-679101. R2 BYADV.SRI.V.B.RAMANUNNI MENON R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI N.SURESH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON1808-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 1282 of 2013 () --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- ANNEXURE-I COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT IN CRIME NO. 339/2011 OF OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE-II COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 339/2011 OF OTTAPPALAM POLICE STATION. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL --------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// A.HARIPRASAD, J.
-------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.1282 of 2013 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2014. ORDER
Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, "Cr.P.C.").
2. Petitioners are accused 2 to 7 in C.C.No.369 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ottappalam. Ottappalam Police registered Crime No.339 of 2011 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (in short, "IPC") on the allegation that the 1st accused, who is the husband of the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant and other accused persons, who are family members of the 1st accused, meted out cruelty to her while she was residing in the matrimonial home after their marriage on 15.06.2008. Annexure-II is the final report. Petitioners seek quashment of the entire proceedings in C.C.No.369 of 2011 of the above said court.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant.
4. The defacto complainant is present in person today. At the outset, there was a suggestion that the entire dispute existing between the parties can be settled in a mediation. Learned counsel for the defacto complainant submitted that the defacto complainant is not prepared to go Crl.MC No.1282/2013 2 for a mediation. Therefore, I heard the learned counsel elaborately.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this is a case wherein the defacto complainant has roped in all the accused persons without any valid reason or sufficient pleadings. Per contra, learned counsel for the defacto complainant submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners alleging that they also indulged in physical and mental harassment of the defacto complainant. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted the case diary for perusal. The complaint forwarded by the learned Magistrate to Police for investigation shows that there are allegations against the petitioners as well in regard to the offence under Section 498A IPC., However, I do not wish to enter into the arena of facts. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying on Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and another ((2010) 7 SCC667 contended that the allegations in the complaint are exaggerated versions of small incidents and the complaint was filed with a view to harass the relatives of her husband. The following observations in the judgment are strongly relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners. "32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large Crl.MC No.1282/2013 3 number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern.
33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquillity of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 35. 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 these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At Crl.MC No.1282/2013 4 times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful." 6. Considering the fact that there are allegations in the complaint, I am of the view that this Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may not be justified in embarking on vexed facts to decide the issues. However, the petitioners are free to approach the learned Magistrate with a petition for discharge and raise all points for claiming a discharge. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that petitioners 2 and Crl.MC No.1282/2013 5 3 are aged parents of the 1st accused and some other petitioners are ladies. It is made clear that the petitioners are free to seek exemption from personal appearance while claiming a discharge and the learned Magistrate shall, in the event the petitioners make a request, permit them to plead discharge in their absence. The Crl.M.C. is disposed of with the above observations. All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed. A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE. cks