Sajeev Dan Mathew vs State Of Kerala

A. Badharudeen, J

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash all further proceedings against the 1st accused in C.C.No.186/2004 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – I, Pathanamthitta, now pending as L.P.No.75/2004 on the files of the same court.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have perused the relevant records.

In this matter, the prosecution case is that, the 1st accused married the victim (CW1), daughter of CW2 and CW3 and they lived together as husband and wife at the matrimonial home. The specific allegation is that, the 3rd accused obtained Rs.1,95,000/- in her account, vide SB account No.1688, South Indian Bank, Kozhencherry branch and solemnized marriage function on 20.9.1997, at St.Laha St.Marthoma Church, Idayaranmula. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 to 3 subjected her to cruelty, asserting that she did not have the requisite beauty and also misappropriated 56 sovereigns of gold ornaments of the de facto complainant and thereby, accused Nos.1 to 3 mentally and physically treated cruelty towards the de facto complainant.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, as per Annexure A5 judgment in C.C.No.1076/1998, dated 28.2.2004, Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta acquitted the 3rd accused. The 2nd accused was no more and the case against the 1st accused got re-filed as C.C.No.186/2004. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 3rd accused was acquitted, since CW1, the wife of the petitioner/1st accused and her parents CW2 and CW3, did not appear before the court for want of evidence. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's case would require quashment.

The learned Public Prosecutor zealously opposed quashment, as sought for, on the ground that, since CW1 to CW3 did not turn upon for giving evidence against the 3rd accused, that by itself is not a ground to quash the proceedings against the 1st accused, who is the husband of the de facto complainant, against whom, there are serious allegations.

Going by the allegations, materials to attract commission of offences under Sections 420 and 498A of the IPC by the petitioner/1st accused, are made out. It is true that, as per Annexure A5, the learned Magistrate acquitted the 3rd accused, since CW1 to CW3 failed to give evidence in support of the prosecution.

Thereafter, the learned Magistrate re-filed the case of the 1st accused as C.C.No.186/2004. When the learned Magistrate found that the presence of the petitioner/1st accused could not be secured for trial, the learned Magistrate included the case in the long pending register as L.P.No.75/2004. While proceedings in L.P.No.75/2004 has been pending, after about 19 years, this petition has been filed to quash the proceedings on the ground that the 3rd accused was acquitted for want of examination of CW1 to CW3.

Since the 3rd accused was acquitted for non-appearance of CW1 to CW3 to give evidence, the same is not a reason to quash the proceedings against the 1st accused, who is the husband of the de facto complainant, without providing opportunity to the prosecution to summon CW1 to CW3 again for trial as against the petitioner, in a case where there are sufficient materials to attract offences under Sections 420 and 498A of the IPC.

Therefore, this petition liable to fail and accordingly, the same is dismissed.