Kerala High Court
Shafeek vs The State Of Kerala on 10 December, 2019
Author: Alexander Thomas
Bench: Alexander Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941
Bail Appl..No.7465 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMC 1533/2019 DATED 11-10-2019 OF SESSIONS
COURT,KOLLAM
CRIME NO.822/2019 OF CHAVARA THEKKUMBHAGOM POLICE STATION , Kollam
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 SHAFEEK
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O. POOKUNJU, THATTEKKATTU THEKKATHIL,
PALACKAL, THEVELAKKARA P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
2 SAFARULLA,
AGED 39 YEARS
THATTEKKATTU THEKKATHIL , PALACKAL, THEVELAKKARA P.O,
KOLLAM DISTRICT.
3 SALEENA,
AGED 29 YEARS
THATTEKKATTU THEKKATHIL, PALACKAL,
THEVELAKKARA P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
4 AMINA BEEVI,
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O. POOKUNJU, THATTEKKATTU THEKKATHIL,
PALACKAL, THEVELAKKARA P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
CHAVARA THEKKUMBHAGOM POLICE STATION,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-690 524
B.A.No.7465/2019 2
3 ADDL.R3 AMINA BEEVI,
D/O JAMEELA BEEVI, AGED 25 YEARS, KALEELIL
KIZHAKETHIL, PUTHANCHANDA PO, PALAKKAL,
THEVALAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R3 AS PER ORDER DATED
12.11.2019 IN CRL.MA NO.2/2019 IN BA-7465/2019.
R3 BY ADV. SRI.AMEER.K.M.
R3 BY ADV. DR.PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN
R3 BY ADV. SMT.M.J.JESNA
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.12.2019,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.7465/2019 3
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
-------------------------------------------
B.A.No.7465 of 2019
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of December, 2019
ORDER
The petitioners herein have been arrayed as accused 1 to 4 among the four accused in the instant Crime No.822/2019 of Chavara Thekkumbhagom Police Station, Kollam District for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 312 and 34 of the IPC The said crime has been registered on the basis of the F.I. Statement given by the lady de facto complainant on 23.8.2019 in respect of the alleged incidents which happened for the period from 21.4.2014 to 2.6.2018. The lady de facto complainant in this case is the wife of the 1 st petitioner (A1). The 2nd to 4th petitioners herein (A2 to A4) are the brother, brother's wife and mother respectively of the 1st petitioner herein (A1).
2. The prosecution case in short is that after the marriage of the above said spouses, the petitioners herein in furtherance of their common intention have subjected the lady de facto complainant to cruelty and harassment on several occasions and that they have demanded more assets from her parents and other near relatives. Further, the lady would complain that movable properties including precious gold ornaments misappropriated by accused 1 to 4 . Further that accused 1 to 4, more particularly accused No.1 had manhandled her as she did not accede to the legal demands of the accused persons etc. It is also B.A.No.7465/2019 4 alleged that due to the cruelty and harassment consistently suffered by her, she was under the mental strain even during the pregnancy stage and the feeters developed complications and she had to undergo abortion etc. Accordingly, it is alleged that the petitioners have committed the above said offences.
3. This Court has heard in detail Sri. K. Rakesh, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State and Dr.Pauly Mathew Muricken, learned counsel appearing for the additional respondent lady de facto complainant. This Court had endeavoured to impress upon the rival parties to attempt for mediation settlement. The good efforts taken by the learned Sessions Court could not succeed, mainly on account of the attitude taken by the petitioners. This Court again suggested to the parties that it may be better to examine the scope of mediatory efforts and since more time may be consumed in the said process, the matter could be remitted to the Sessions Court to consider the plea for anticipatory bail and also for referring the parties to the nearest District Mediation Centre. The learned Public Prosecutor does not have any serious objection to the said course of action. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and the learned Advocate appearing for the lady de facto complainant were seriously requested by this Court to get instructions from the respective parties.
4. Today when the matter has been taken up for consideration, Sri. K. Rakesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that his parties would certainly co-operate with the mediation process in a positive B.A.No.7465/2019 5 manner and they will attempt to take all sincere efforts to settle all outstanding disputes with the lady de facto complainant in a fair and proper manner. Dr. Pauly Mathew Muricken, learned Advocate appearing for the 3 rd respondent lady de facto complainant would submit on the basis of instructions of his party that his party is also willing for the such course of action and that the said positive stand was taken by the lady de facto complainant in the Sessions Court also. But, that in view of the stand taken by the petitioners, the parties could not be referred for mediation. Further it is submitted on behalf of the lady de facto complainant that she would sincerely and fully co-operate with the mediation process provided the petitioners are very serious and sincere about it and they do not use it as an excuse for prolonging the case.
5. Now that, since the petitioners have taken a very positive stand that they would fully and sincerely co-operate with the mediation process, this Court is of the considered view that mediatory efforts should be seriously pursued and since the parties are all based in Kollam and since the mediation process might take some time, it will be better to pursue the mediation proceedings at the District Mediation Centre, Kollam, so that the parties are not unnecessarily inconvenienced in travelling all the way from Kollam to Ernakulam. The Sessions Court had rejected the plea of anticipatory bail as per the impugned Annexure-C order dated 11.10.2019 in Crl.M.C. 1533/2019. This Court had queried to all the parties concerned as to whether the matter could be remitted to the Sessions Court for consideration of the anticipatory bail afresh and giving top and first priority for mediation process. The rival parties and the respondent State have B.A.No.7465/2019 6 agreed to the said suggestion of the Court. For effectuating such mediatory efforts, it is ordered that the impugned Annexure-C order dated 11.10.2019 rendered by the Sessions Court, Kollam in Crl.M.C. 1533/2019 (arising out of Crime No.822/2019 of Chavara Thekkkumbhagom Police Station) will stand set aside. Consequently, the plea for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioners as Crl.M.C.No.1533/2019 will stand remitted to the Sessions Court, Kollam for consideration and decision afresh. The petitioners herein and the 3 rd respondent herein shall personally appear before the Sessions Court, Kollam along with their respective Advocates at 11 a.m. on 8.1.2020. Upon such appearance, the Sessions Court, Kollam will ensure that the parties are immediately referred to the District Mediation Centre, Kollam. Thereupon, the District Mediation Centre will forthwith refer the parties to the Mediator on the same day, who will commence it forthwith and will endeavour to complete the same within 7-8 weeks, if so feasible. Until the parties appear before the Sessions Court, Kollam in the above case, further coercive steps including the proposed arrest of the petitioners herein in relation to the present case shall be deferred by the Investigating Officer. However, in case all the parties concerned volunteer themselves for mediation process, then it is ordered that the said protective order will continue until the conclusion of the mediation proceedings. If the mediation process turns to be successful, then the parties may work out further remedies in the manner known to law. On the other hand, the mediation process turns to be failure, then the Sessions Court, Kollam will consider the plea for anticipatory bail made in Crl.M.C. No.1533/2019 on merit and, after affording B.A.No.7465/2019 7 reasonable opportunity of being heard to the accused persons, the de facto complainant as well as the prosecution, should pass orders thereon without much delay. The Registry will forward a copy of this order to the Sessions Court, Kollam, who is dealing with Crl.M.C.No.1533/2019 for necessary information, at the cost of the petitioners.
With these observations and directions, the above bail application will stand disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.
acd