Kerala High Court
Vinod Damodharan vs State Of Kerala on 31 July, 2014
Author: K. Ramakrishnan
Bench: K.Ramakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2014/9TH SRAVANA, 1936
Crl.MC.No. 251 of 2014 ()
--------------------------
IN CC 884/2010 of J.M.F.C.-III,PALAKKAD
IN CC 165/2011 of J.M.F.C.-III,PALAKKAD
CRIME NOS. 273/2010 & 275/2010 OF HEMAMBIKA NAGAR POLICE STATION,
PALAKKAD
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
----------------------
VINOD DAMODHARAN,
AGED 39 YEARS,
S/O V.R. DAMODHARAN, KARAMMEL HOUSE,
AMMALLOOR,
MANJADI P.O.,
THIRUVALLA - 689105.
BY ADV. SMT.BINDU GEORGE
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:
--------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
HEMAMBIKA NAGAR POLICE STATION,
PALAKKAD THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM- 682 013.
2. JOHNSON,,
AGED 65 YEARS,
S/O KRISHNAN, POURNAMMI HOUSE,
PAYYITTAMKUNNU,
DHONI P.O.,
PALAKKAD-678 101.
3. SHEEJA,,
AGED 65 YEARS,
D/O JOHNSON, POURNAMMI HOUSE,
PAYYITTAMKUNNU, DHONI P.O.,
PALAKKAD-678 101.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA P.GEORGE.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
31-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
rvs/
Crl.MC.No. 251 of 2014 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :
----------------------
ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CIME NO 273/2010 OF THE HEMAMBIKA
NAGAR POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO 275/2010 OF THEHEMAMBIKA
NAGAR POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR
OF POLICE IN CIRME NO 273/2010.
ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY FO THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR
OF POLICE IN CRIME NI 275/2010.
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:
-----------------------
NIL.
/true copy/
P.A.TO JUDGE
rvs/
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
.................................................
Crl.M.C.No.251 of 2014
..................................................
Dated this the 31st day of July, 2014.
O R D E R
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Palakkad for simultaneous disposal of C.C.Nos.884/2010 and 165/2011 pending before that court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. It is alleged in the petition that petitioner is the accused facing prosecution in Crime Nos.273/2010 and 275/2010 of Hemambika Nagar police station alleging offences under Sections 341, 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 498 A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code respectively. Investigation in both the cases were completed and final reports have been filed in both the cases and they are pending as C.C.Nos.884/2010 and165/2011 respectively before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Palakkad. Petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.884/2010 and first accused in C.C.No.165/2011. Petitioner is the son-in-law of the defacto complainant in C.C.No.884/2010 and husband of the defacto complainant in C.C.No.165/2011. If these cases are tried Crl.M.C.No.251 of 2014 2 separately, he will be put to serious hardship. So he has no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking the following relief:
"On these and among other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the learned Magistrate of JFMC III, Palakkad to try simultaneously the proceedings in CC.No.884/2010 and CC.No.165/2011 on the file of JFMC III, Palakkad in the ends of justice".
3. Though notice has been served on respondents 2 and 3, they remain absent. The learned Public Prosecutor appeared for the 1st respondent.
4. I have called for a report from the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Palakkad regarding the present stage of both the cases and time required for disposal of the case, which reads as follows:
"C.C.884/2010 is a case registered by the SHO of Hemambika Nagar Police Station against the accused Sri. Vinod Damodaran alleging offences punishable under Secs.341 & 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
Crl.M.C.No.251 of 2014 3
Prosecution case is that the accused married the daughter of the defacto complainant, Johnson. Due to the physical harassment his daughter along with her child was staying in the house of the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant and the accused were on inimical terms because (1) he asked the accused to take her daughter and child along with him and (2) he demanded the amount obtained by the accused from the sale of the property which was given by the defacto complainant. On 31.8.2010 at 01.00 p.m when the defacto complainant along with his four year old grand daughter reached in front of the railway school at Hemambika Nagar, Palakkad, this accused, Sri. Vinod Damodaran wrongfully restrained them. He caught hold of the collar of his shirt, pushed him down and slapped and kicked him on various parts of his body. The accused also gave a bite to the middle finger of the defacto complainant's right hand by which he suffered an injury. Thereafter the accused took the child along with him. Cognizance for the offence was taken alleging the offences punishable under secs 341 & 323 of the Indian Penal Code. After a long repeated coercive steps the accused surrendered before the court on 29.5.2013 and he was enlarged on bail. His plea was recorded and CW1 to 3 Crl.M.C.No.251 of 2014 4 were summoned. After taking coercive steps, presence of CW1 to CW3 was produced on 5.11.2013. But on the day the counsel for the accused sought adjournment and they were bound over on costs. Again they appeared on 9.12.13. On the day, Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that from the wound certificate and form the prosecution records it is seen that the accused has bitten CW1. The records also show a fresh bleeding injury. She made a request to alter the charge and add Sec.324 also. The case was adjourned to 13.1.2014 for hearing on altered charge. On that day the counsel for the accused produced the say order Crl.M.A.337/2014 in Crl.M.C.No.251/2014 date 7.1.2014 by which the matter was stayed by the Hon'ble High Court for a period of two months. Thereafter this case was posted to 17..3.2014 and 28.4.2014. On 28.4.2014 the date on which the case was lastly taken the accused's counsel produced the order dated 4.4.2014 of the Hon'ble High Court by which the stay was further extended for a period of three months. Hence the case was adjourned on 11.7.2014. In this case the accused has to be heard on altered charge. Prosecution has cited 10 witnesses in the case.
C.C. 165/2011 is the matter in which Smt. Sheeja Crl.M.C.No.251 of 2014 5 D/o. Johnson has filed a private complaint against the accused named Vinod Damodaran, Damodaran, Padmavathi. The private complaint was forwarded to SHO, Hemambika Nagar Police Station who after investigation filed the final report. Cognizance of the offence was taken against the accused alleging the offence punishable under Sec. 498 A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The gist of the case is that the marriage between the defacto complainant and the first accused (Vinod Damodaran was solemnized on 1.5.2005 as per Christian religious rites and ceremonies. Thereafter they lived together as husband and wife in her matrimonial home. At the time of marriage the defacto complainant was given Rs.1,00,000/- and 19 1/2 cents of rubber plantations at Thiruvanthapuram. Since the date of marriage till 14.8.2010 she was physically and mentally harassed by the accused together saying that the gold ornaments given at the time of marriage was not enough and also by saying that she was not fair. In the case all the accused appeared and charge was framed against them and CW1 to CW3 were summoned. After taking coercive steps, CW1 to CW3 appeared on 15.11.2013. But they were bound over on the request of the accused's Crl.M.C.No.251 of 2014 6 counsel. On 17.3.2014 the counsel for the accused produced the stay order by which the matter was stayed for one month. Again on 28.4.2014 also she produced the stay order by which the stay was extended for another three months. Now case stands adjourned to 11.7.2014. In the case prosecution has cited nine witnesses.
Before concluding with, I would like to submitted one more aspect before you good self that in this case (CC 165/2011) a CMP No.1285/2013 was filed by the defacto complainant stating that even when both these cases are going on she was bing mentally harassed and threatened by the first accused, Vinod Damodaran. Because of the threatening from the side of the accused, she finds it difficult to go out of the house. She is also scared whether the accused will attack her children. For the reason, she prays for the cancellation of the bail of the accused. The CMP is also pending.
Respectfully I may submit that, in CC 165/2011 charge was framed and the trial is to be started. In CC 884/2010, the case stands posted for hearing on altered charge. This being the situation, I submit before you good self that I will be able to dispose of both the cases within a period of three months.
I place these submissions before you good self for Crl.M.C.No.251 of 2014 7 a kind and favourable consideration".
5. When the petition came up for hearing today, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that, if these two cases are posted on different dates, he will have to go and conduct the cases on different occasions, which will cause hardship to the petitioner. Since the incident is related to matrimonial offence as well between the persons, who are connected with the marriage, both will have to be disposed of simultaneously is the submission made.
6. Considering the fact that in both the cases petitioner is the accused and he has to face two prosecutions registered on the basis of the complaint given one by the wife and other by the father-in-law and in one case it was posted for evidence which has not been started and in another case, charge has been framed, this Court feels that the petition can be disposed of as follows:
Considering the fact that petitioner is the accused in both the cases, efforts must be made by the learned Magistrate to post both the cases on the same date so that the petitioner can appear and defend the case effectively. Since both the cases are of the year 2000 and 2011, the lower court is directed to Crl.M.C.No.251 of 2014 8 expedite the trial of both the cases as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order as mentioned in the report.
With the above directions and observations, this petition is disposed of.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately.
Sd/-
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
cl /true copy/ P.S to Judge Crl.M.C.No.251 of 2014 9