Kerala High Court
Hari.T.Thankappan vs State Of Kerala on 16 September, 2017
Author: Sunil Thomas
Bench: Sunil Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
SATURDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017/25TH BHADRA, 1939
Crl.MC.No. 7427 of 2015 ()
---------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 230/2013 of J.M.F.C.-I, ALUVA
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 5 & 7:
----------------------------
1. HARI.T.THANKAPPAN,
S/O.THANKAPPAN, AGED 33,
ADEEKKALAM, KOVILLOOR VEEDU, KUDAPPANAMOODU P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 510.
2. K.S.DILEEPKUMAR,
S/O.KRISHNADAS, AGED 33, VARUVILAKATHU HOUSE,
VELLARADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 505.
BY ADV. SRI.JAI GEORGE
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & PETITIONER:
---------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESSENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031.
2. DANEESHA,
D/O.SIVASANKARAN NAIR, ANNAVELIL,
CHARAMANGALAM MURIYIL, THANNIRMUKKU SOUTH VILLAGE,
CHERTALAI TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 678 001..
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16-09-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 7427 of 2015 ()
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
ANNEXURE-A1. A TRUE COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT MP NO.1472/11 FILED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT WHICH IS NOW PENDING AS CC NO.230/2013 ON THE
FILES OF JFCM-I, ALUVA.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL
-----------------------
/TRUE COPY/
P. A. TO JUDGE
Pn
SUNIL THOMAS, J.
-------------------------------------------
Crl. M. C. No. 7427 of 2015
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of September, 2017
O R D E R
The petitioners are the accused Nos. 5 and 7 in C.C. No.230/2013 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court 1, Aluva for offence punishable under Section 495 read with Section 34 IPC. The case arose from a private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein, claiming that she was married to the 1st accused. During the subsistence of that marriage, the 1st accused married the 2nd accused under the Special Marriage Act, on 02.02.2007. The accused Nos.3 and 4 are the parents of the 1st accused and accused Nos. 5 to 7 were the witnesses to the above marriage. It was alleged in the private complaint that the marriage was during the subsistence of the marriage with the 1st petitioner herein and consequently, the accused have committed offence punishable under Section 495 read with Section 34 IPC.
2. Pursuant to the complaint laid, the statement of the complainant was recorded as CW1 and the Sub Registrar and another witness were examined as CW2 and CW3. On the basis of the materials let in by the de facto complainant, cognizance was taken and summons was ordered to the accused. The Crl. M. C. No. 7427 of 2015 2 petitioners contending that they were only the witnesses to the marriage and that they were not aware of the marriage of the 1st accused with the de facto complainant and that an offence under Section 495 will not lie against them, has sought relief.
3. Notice was issued to the 2nd respondent de facto complainant who remained absent in spite of service of notice. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred in extenso to the private complaint, a copy of which is produced as Annexure A1. It specifically refers to the complicity of accused Nos. 1 and 2 along with accused Nos. 3 and 4. Regarding the involvement of the petitioners herein who are arrayed as accused Nos. 5 and 7, absolutely no reference is made in the complaint. There is no allegation that they were aware of the previous marriage and that they have participated in the commission of the crime. Even in the sworn statement of the de facto complainant, there is no reference regarding the involvement of the petitioners herein. Evidently, there is absolutely no material on record to show that the petitioners were aware of the previous marriage or that there is a disclosure of facts evidencing the ingredients of Section 495 as against the petitioners herein. Consequently, continuation of Crl. M. C. No. 7427 of 2015 3 the proceedings as against the petitioners herein can only be an abuse of process of law.
Hence, Crl.M.C. will stand allowed and all further proceedings in C.C. No.230/2013 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court 1, Aluva in so far as it relates to the petitioners herein stand quashed.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.
Pn