KUNHASSI Vs. SUMAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are accused 2 to 5 in Crime No.809 of 2010 of Payyannur Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 315 and 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Annexure-AIII is the complaint preferred by respondent No.1 which was forwarded for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code") and based on which the FIR was registered. Annexure-AIII, complaint contained allegations that petitioners and first accused directly or indirectly had always been demanding more ornaments and money and a share in the property of mother of respondent No.1. It is alleged that the first accused assaulted respondent No.1 on 13.12.2010 which was happily watched by the petitioners who even scolded her. There are certain other allegations also in the complaint implicating petitioners and the first accused. It is stated that first respondent at the time she was allegedly assaulted by the first accused was carrying, she consulted a medical officer who advised her to have termination of the pregnancy (due to the alleged assault on her) and accordingly the pregnancy was aborted on 26.12.2008 (due to first accused kicking her on the abdomen).

(2.) IT is contended by learned counsel for petitioners that complaint is nothing but a sequel to the first accused not complying with the demand of respondent No.1 to have a separate residence. First accused had issued Annexure-AI, notice on 20.03.2010 seeking restitution of conjugal rights to which first respondent gave Annexure-AII, reply dated 07.04.2010. Learned counsel invited my attention to paragraphs 9 and 10 of Annexure- AII, reply where respondent No.1 is stated to have expressed her desire to have a separate residence with the first accused. IT is also submitted by the learned counsel that police is harassing petitioners in the light of the FIR. Learned counsel contends that this is a fit case where FIR is to be quashed.