Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 5 docs
Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code
Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code
Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code
Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code

Try out the Virtual Legal Assistant to take your notes as you use the website, build your case briefs and professionally manage your legal research. Also try out our Query Alert Service and enjoy an ad-free experience. Premium Member services are free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Kerala High Court
Crime No. 314/2012 Of Ambalavayal ... vs By Adv. Sri.Aneesh Joseph on 24 September, 2012
       

  

  

 
 
               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT:

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

        TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2014/10TH ASHADHA, 1936

                     Crl.MC.No. 1628 of 2013 ()
                     ---------------------------


AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 45/2013 of J.M.F.C-I,SULTHAN BATHERY

CRIME NO. 314/2012 OF AMBALAVAYAL POLICE STATION , WAYANAD.



PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
------------------

       M.V ABDUL LATHEEF, AGED 40 YEARS,
       MULAVEETTIL HOUSE, KOLLATHARA POST,
       KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

       BY ADV. SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH.



RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
-------------------------

     1. HASEENA,, AGED 23 YEARS,
       D/O.HAMSA, KATTEKKADAN HOUSE, KADALMAD.P.O.,
       THOMATTUCHAL VILLAGE, BATHERY TALUK,
        WAYANAD DISTRICT.

     2. STATE OF KERALA THROUGH
       STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
       AMBALAVAYAL POLICE STATION,
       WAYANAD DISTRICT,
        REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
       HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 31.

       R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.BINDU GOPINATH.



       THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE  HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD  ON
 01-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.MC.No. 1628 of 2013 ()


                             APPENDIX



PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :


ANNEXURE A1 :    TRUE COPY of the COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE IST
                 RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
                 COURT, KALPETTA DATED 24-9-2012.

ANNEXURE A2 :    TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.780/12 OF
                 KALPETTA POLICE STATION.

ANNEXURE A3 :    TRUE COPY of the FIR IN CRIME NO.314/2012 OF
                 AMBALAVAYAL POLICE STATION.

ANNEXURE A4 :    CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL CHARGE SHEET FILED
                 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I,
                 SULTHAN BATHERY IN CRIME NO.314/2012.

ANNEXURE A5 :    TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE IN CRIME
                 NO.314/2012 OF THE AMBALAVAYAL POLICE STATION.

ANNEXURE A6 :    TRUE COPY OF THE 161 STATEMENT OF THE WITNESSES IN
                 THE CASE BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
                 COURT-I, SULTHAN BATHERY.

ANNEXURE A7 :    TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS ISSUED BY JUDICIAL FIRST
                 CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - I, SULTHAN BATHERY.



RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES :    NIL.




                                                    //TRUE COPY//




                                                    P.A TO JUDGE




amk



                       A.HARIPRASAD, J.
            ------------------------------------------------
                   Crl.M.C No.1628 of 2013
            ------------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 1st day of July, 2014.

                             O R D E R

Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Petitioner is the accused in C.C No.45/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Sulthan Bathery. Initially the Prosecution registered a case against the petitioner/accused alleging offences under Sections 376, 342 and 506(2) I.P.C. Later, when it was established that the petitioner/accused had married the defacto complainant, the offences of rape and wrongful confinement were deleted. Now, what is remaining is only an offence under Section 498A I.P.C.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. I have carefully gone through the materials in the records which show that the predominant allegation raised by the defacto complainant against the petitioner is that he has deserted her and failed to provide maintenance to her. Crl.M.C No.1628 of 2013 2 Absolutely no allegation of physical or mental cruelty meted out to her is mentioned in the statements. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the prosecution is an abuse of the process of the court. Going by the allegations raised by the defacto complainant, it can be seen at the most that she is entitled to seek relief for maintenance. However, the prosecution under Section 498A I.P.C is without any legal justification.

In the result, the petition is allowed. Annexure A4 final report in Crime No.314/2012 of Ambalavayal Police Station is hereby quashed.

All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.

Sd/-

A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.

amk //True copy// P.Ato Judge