Sajeev P.P vs State Of Kerala

A. Badharudeen, J

This Crl.M.C. has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner/accused in C.C. No.212/2020 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur, to quash the same.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the records.3. Here the petitioner and the defacto complainant in Crl.M.C. No.2677/2020 are the parties. In the said case, the allegation was that the accused committed offence under Sections 498A, 323, 324, 506 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short hereinafter). This Court considered the quashment of the said case and partly allowed the same, holding that the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 420 and 506 of IPC shall go on, while quashing proceedings for the other offences.

In this case, the reason for registering the crime  is  an  incident  that  occurred  on  30.01.2020.  The allegation is that when the defacto complainant and the accused were at the corridor of the Family Court, Thrissur for counselling,  the  accused  loudly  said  that  the  defacto complainant was a lunatic person and he also used abusive words  against  her.  Further  allegation  is  that  he  also threatened the defacto complainant stating that if the defacto complainant was not ready to settle the matter by permitting a divorce, he would not be spared and he would be killed. In this regard, complaint was lodged on the same day before the Thrissur Town West Sub Inspector. Acting on the same, the present  Crime No.168/2020  of Thrissur  City  Police  was registered and investigated. After investigation, the police laid charge alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 506 of IPC, by the accused.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this case registered during the pendency of the other case dealt in Crl.M.C. No.2677/2020 is absolutely a false one. It is submitted further that the entire allegations are false and the occurrence itself would suggest that the same is at the corridor of the Family Court, for which the possibility is too remote. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought for quashment of the proceedings.

Whereas quashment is zealously opposed by the learned counsel for the defacto complainant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor pointing out the fact that going by the allegations in the complaint and final report, the offences are made out prima facie and the defacto complainant and her father, CW2 given statement in support of the occurrence, apart from an independent witness, Babu (CW3) also given statement in support of the occurrence. In such view of the matter,  the  offences are  made  out  prima  facie  and  the quashment cannot be considered.

On perusal of the prosecution allegations, it is discernible that the offences are made out prima facie and the defacto complainant and her father, CW2 given statement in support of the occurrence, apart from that CW3 an independent witness, also given statement in support of the occurrence. Although it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the occurrence is an outright impossibility since the place of occurrence is at the corridor of the Family Court, the said aspect cannot be countenanced, since there is no outright impossibility to do the overt acts alleged in this case at the corridor of a court.

In view of the discussion, quashment sought for is liable to fail and is accordingly dismissed.