Kerala High Court
Jisha vs State Of Kerala on 21 May, 2013
Author: K.Ramakrishnan
Bench: K.Ramakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2013/31ST VAISAKHA 1935
Crl.MC.No. 4186 of 2008 (E)
----------------------------
CC 134/2008 OF THE C.J.M.COURT, PALAKKAD
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2:
------------------------------
1. JISHA, D/O. THE LATE SHANKARAN,
KRISHNA NAGAR, PUTHUR, PALAKKAD.
2. SARAVANA BHAVADAS, S/O.SARAVANAN,
KUNNATH MADOM, OPPOSITE RAILWAY STATION,
PARALI, PALAKKAD.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.M.PREM
SMT.K.P.SANTHI
SRI.P.K.NIJOY
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
-----------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2. T.K.BHAVADAS, S/O.KESAVAN,
UTHRAMKADU VEEDU, THENKURISSI, PALAKKAD.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
21-05-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 4186 of 2008 (E)
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE I- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.31.7.2004 IN M.O.P.39
OF 2001 OF THE SUB COURT, PALAKKAD
ANNEXURE II- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.17.9.07 IN MAT.APPEAL
NO.172/2004 OF THIS COURT.
ANNEXURE III- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT C.C.127/2006 BEFORE
THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PALAKKAD
FILED ON 30.6.2006 BY THE 2ND PETITIONER
ANNEXURE IV- TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.13.10.2008 IN C.C.127/2006
REFILED AS C.C.134/2008 BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE COURT, PALAKKAD.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL
Okb.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------------- Criminal MC No.4186 of 2008
---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of May 2013 Order This is an application filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 in CC No.134/2008 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad, for quashing the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The case of the petitioner as stated in the petition, is as follows :
The marriage between the complainant and the first accused was solemnized as per Hindu customary rites on 30.05.1999. After marriage, they were living in the respondent's house. Their marital life lasted only for a few months and since 15.10.1999, there is no relationship between them. While so, MOP No.39 of 2001 was filed by the first accused alleging cruelty and harassment. The petition for divorce was allowed as per Annexure I order dated 31.7.2004. The complainant filed Mat. Appeal No.174/2004 before this Court and this Court, on 17.09.2007, passed Annexure II order, dissolving the marriage between the parties. The second respondent filed Annexure-III CRMC 4186/08 2 private complaint against the petitioners and three other persons, alleging offences under Sections 494, 109 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the case was taken on file as CC No.127/06 and the present petitioners were absconding and the trial against the remaining accused was proceeded with. It is seen from Annexure IV order that the case against accused Nos.3 to 5 after trial was ended in acquittal and the case against the present petitioners was split up and renumbered as CC No.134/08. So, the learned counsel for accused Nos.1 and 2 in the lower court wanted to quash the case as against them.
3. Heard the learned counsel or the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and also the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
4. The allegation in the complaint was that there was a second marriage conducted by the first accused while the marriage of the first accused and the complainant was subsisting. On going through Annexure IV order, it is seen that there is no finding regarding as to whether there was a valid second marriage or not. But, the court below acquitted the other accused persons on the ground that there is no evidence to CRMC 4186/08 3 show that they have abetted the marriage and that benefit was given to them. So, that cannot be taken as a ground for quashing the present proceedings against the petitioners, as evidence regarding marriage etc. will have to be adduced in this case separately. So, considering these circumstances, the grounds alleged in the petition are insufficient to quash the proceedings. It is made clear that the disposal of this application will not, in any way, affect the right of accused Nos.1 and 2, who are the petitioners herein, to raise all their contentions before the lower court including the legality of the alleged second marriage and considering the same by the learned Magistrate and the disposing of the case in accordance with law. So, the petitioners are not entitled to get the relief of quashing CC No.134/08 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Palakkad.
With the above observations, the petition is disposed of.
K.Ramakrishnan, Judge
sta
CRMC 4186/08 4
CRMC 4186/08 5