HEMALATHA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the above Crl.M.C filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C is as follows:

(2.) Heard Smt.T.T.Shaniba, the learned counsel for the petitioners (accused 1 and 2), Sri. B.Jayasurya, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for R1-State of Kerala, and Sri.Sumeesh K.S. the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent R2( lady defacto complainant). The petitioners herein have been arrayed as accused 1 and 2 among the 2 accused in the instant impugned Annexure-A1 FIR in Crime No.611/2019 of Thrissur West Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Section 498 A of IPC on the basis of First Information Statement furnished by the 2 nd respondent/defacto complainant on 21.08.2019 in respect of the alleged incidents which happened for a period from 11.12.2017 to 13.08.2019. The police after investigation has filed the impugned Annexure A2 final report/charge sheet, which has now led into the pendency of C.C.No.252/2019 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur. The allegations in the above said criminal proceedings is to the effect that the 2 nd respondent had married son of the 1 st petitioner (A1, who also happens to be the brother of 2 nd petitioner- A2), and later the defacto complainant and her husband and the 1 st petitioner had gone to Australia and had been residing along with the 2nd petitioner-A2 in the flat owned by her at Australia, and that the accused persons used to frequently insult her and take her with cruelty and harassment. The 2nd respondent would assert in Annexure A3- FIS that her husband was always having a very lovable attitude to her, and that the said spouses do not have any difference of opinion and but that her husband never overruled the interference of accused 1 and 2. Further that the incidents of cruelty and harassment has taken place in her husband's residence at Panampally Nagar-Ernakulam and later at the residence of A2 in Australia, when the parties were residing together there. It is also alleged that, immediately after the marriage when the 2 nd respondent starts residing at the residence at Panampilly Nagar- Ernakulam, and that she used to be frequently insulted by them stating that she lacks beauty and that she has not bought enough gold, and that the gold ornaments given to the defacto complainant at the time of her marriage was taken by A1 and it is with her custody etc.

(3.) Smt. T.T.Shaniba, the learned counsel for the petitioners would strongly urged that the above said criminal proceedings will not disclose any serious case or offence as per Section 498 A of IPC and that the impugned criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. Per contra the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned appearing for the defacto complainant would urge otherwise and it is stated that the prosecution would certainly lie and the contentions raised of the petitioners are the matters to be considered by the trial court.