Anilkumar vs State of Kerala

Thomas P. Joseph, J.—Petitioner is accused in Crime No. 382 of 2006 of Ettumanoor Police Station and C.C. No. 317 of 2007 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ettumanoor for offence punishable u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC"). Petitioner prays that Annexure-2, final report and all proceedings taken pursuant to that may be quashed. According to the Petitioner, the allegations in Annexure-2, final report do not constitute any offence u/s 498A of the IPC. It is the further contention that Petitioner had filed a petition seeking divorce and return of money, an exparte order was passed in that case and that appeal is pending Learned Counsel submitted that allegations are not sufficient to constitute an offence u/s 498A of the IPC. Hence it is prayed that proceeding against Petitioner may be quashed. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that there are sufficient materials to sustain the charge.

The case was registered on 08.09.2006 on the strength of information given by the wife of Petitioner. In that statement she claimed that the marriage was on 08.09.1998 and, in the wedlock a son was born. Thereafter, Petitioner, the defacto complainant and their son went to Dubai. While at Dubai, Petitioner has been harassing her with demand for money. He insisted that she should sell her share in her family property and get money. In connection with that demand Petitioner has been subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty. While so, she returned to her native place; Petitioner though, later also returned. Learning that Petitioner has come to his native place, defacto complainant went there Petitioner refused to allow the defacto complainant to stay in the matrimonial home. Petitioner''s brother stated that she cannot be permitted to stay there. At that time Petitioner came out and assaulted the defacto complainant. It is stated that she took treatment at the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam.

Under Explanation (b) to Section 498A of the IPC harassment of the women where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand is ''cruelty'' as understood in Section 498A of the IPC. Here, the statement given by the defacto complainant would reveal that there was unlawful demand on the part of the Petitioner to sell the share of the defacto complainant in her family property and get money. According to her, the alleged harassment - both physical and mental was on account of the defacto complainant failing to do so. I am not inclined to think that no case is made out as contended by the Petitioner so that, the final report and proceedings against him are to be quashed.

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case fails. It is dismissed.