Vinod vs State Of Kerala on 11 November, 2024

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Vinod vs State Of Kerala on 11 November, 2024

This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing Annexure 2 Final Report in C.C.No.333/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattakkada, by the accused therein, on the ground that none of the offences alleged against him are made out from the records of the case.

2. Based on the statement given by the additional third respondent, on 12/03/2020, the Police lodged an FIR against the petitioner herein alleging offences punishable under Section 354 D(1), 451, and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short). The gist of the prosecution version is that, despite being dissuaded by the additional third respondent who is a married lady, the petitioner followed her and caused annoyance to her from 5/11/2019 and on 19/01/2020 at 11:30 a.m., he Cr.M.C.No.2356/2022 4 2024:KER:84011 trespassed into her bedroom and lay on her cot and further threatened that he would ruin the life of her husband and relatives. The petitioner allegedly held a grudge against the additional third respondent for rejecting his romantic interest and marrying someone else.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The additional third respondent did not appear despite receiving the notice issued by this court. Considering the best interest of the addl. third respondent, a married woman, we do not mention her name in this judgment and instead, refer to her in the cause title as Mrs. X, though the offences alleged do not fall under Section 228A of the IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner forcefully submitted that none of the statements or other records produced by the prosecution would show that any of the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner are attracted. The Public Prosecutor refuted the said argument by contending that trespassing into the Cr.M.C.No.2356/2022 5 2024:KER:84011 bedroom of the additional third respondent itself is sufficient to attract Section 451 of IPC, and hence, the final report should not be quashed. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that though the additional third respondent did not appear before this court, she had given a statement before the investigating officer that she was not conceding to quash the proceedings and the said statement has been produced before the trial court.

5. We perused Annexure 2 to find whether it prima facie discloses that the petitioner has committed any of the offences alleged against him. In fact, what we found from the records is quite contrary to the allegations made in the Final Report. Even though the gist of the allegations given by the Police in the FIR and the final report is as stated above when the statement of the additional third respondent is read in its entirety, it is evident that it did not ex facie reveal any of the criminal offences alleged against the petitioner. If the statement of the additional third respondent is summarised and translated into English, Cr.M.C.No.2356/2022 6 2024:KER:84011 it would be as follows:

Once, Vinod approached me and conveyed that he loved me. I also liked him. But when my brother queried Vinod about this, he said he did not know me. Due to this, I ignored him, and after that, I married Rajeev. While I was living with my husband and children, I sent Vinod a friend request on his Facebook. When he telephoned me, he informed me that he did not tell my brother as stated above, and instead, my brother asked him not to disturb me. He used to call me regularly after that. When I informed him that I might go abroad together with my husband, he disagreed. When I blocked his number, he started to send messages through Messenger and threatened that he would commit suicide. One day, he came in front of my house and again threatened that he would commit suicide. On 18/01/2020, he came to my house, quarrelled with me, and damaged my phone. On 19/01/2020 Cr.M.C.No.2356/2022 7 2024:KER:84011 at 11:30 a.m., he came to my house again and lay on my bed. He was drunk. My father asked him to leave, but he refused. Finally, he left. On the 21st day at 9:15 a.m., he called me over the telephone and informed me that unless I joined him, he would commit suicide. After that, he called me continuously, and he said he would jump into the sea and kill himself if I didn't go with him. When his annoyance became unbearable, I went to Poojappura (and met him). Then he said we could live somewhere else. I said I couldn't abandon my children to live (with him). Then he suggested that both of us could die. Then we took a room at a lodge at Attingal and stayed together. Both of us went to Tamil Nadu in an Activa scooter. He bought nearly 50 paracetamol tablets, and we ate 15 tablets each. As we didn't feel any effect, he bought four packets of rat poison, and we had it.

When we started vomiting, we went to the Cr.M.C.No.2356/2022 8 2024:KER:84011 General Hospital, and subsequently, we were treated at the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. I do not know why Vinod is continuing this relationship, why he came to my house without my permission, and why he did everything to me when I was leading a peaceful family life. He threatened that once he got a job, he would implicate my relatives in various cases and ruin their lives. He also warned that upon getting a job, he'd implicate my husband in litigations, preventing his return to the Gulf.

6. The above statement, when read in its entirety, would indicate only that, in almost all acts, the petitioner acted hand in hand with the additional third respondent. Both of them liked each other, and they nurtured their relationship after the marriage of the additional third respondent through telephone calls and messages. Both reciprocated their feelings and continued their relationship post-marriage via phone calls and messages. While the petitioner may have Cr.M.C.No.2356/2022 9 2024:KER:84011 overstepped at times, most actions were mutual, likely under his influence. Given their intent to nurture the relationship, it is difficult to classify these actions as criminal offences charged against the petitioner.

7. It is well-settled law that for every statutory offence, criminal intent is an essential ingredient unless it is expressly or by necessary implication excluded by the statute. (See State Of Maharashtra vs Mayer Hans George: 1965 AIR 722). The above statement inevitably leads us to the conclusion that the intention of the petitioner was not to commit any of the criminal acts defined in the respective provisions of the IPC, including stalking, but to reaffirm their emotional relationship, which was reciprocated by the other, as well. The statements of other witnesses are mere hearsay information gathered from the additional third respondent. But interestingly, they reveal the intensity of their relationship and the circumstance in which the petitioner entered the house, which fortify the above findings.

8. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for Cr.M.C.No.2356/2022 10 2024:KER:84011 the petitioner, the offence punishable under Section 451 of IPC gets attracted only when a person commits house-trespass in order to commit any offence punishable with imprisonment. Thus, even if the petitioner entered the residence of the additional third respondent without her consent, that will not amount to the offence mentioned above. Similarly, when read as a whole, the statement extracted above does not attract the offence punishable under Section 354-D or Section 506 of IPC.

9. In view of the above discussion, we find that the criminal proceeding is liable to be quashed to secure the ends of justice.

In the result, Annexure 2 Final Report is quashed. The Crl. M.C. is allowed accordingly.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE Sd/-

P. KRISHNA KUMAR JUDGE sv Cr.M.C.No.2356/2022 11 2024:KER:84011 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2356/2022 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES Annexure1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR AND FIS IN CRIME NO.

208/2020 OF MALAYINKEEZHU POLICE STATION Annexure2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.

208/2020 OF MALAYINKEEZHU POLICE STATION

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court