M.PREMALATHA Vs. SASIKUMAR, S/O.KARUNAKARAKURUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complainant in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the I.P.C. is the petitioner herein who seeks leave of this Court to file an appeal against the judgment dated 24/12/2004 in S.T.No.392 of 2004 of the court of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Marad Cases), Kozhikode since she is aggrieved by the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court under Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. in favour of the accused Nos.2 to 11 who faced the trial.

(2.) THE case of the complainant is that she is residing in her house along with her two female children aged 21 and 11 years. The mother-in-law of the complainant, mother of the complainant and one Thankam are also residing with her. In the portion which was let out, Nazeera Rafeeque is residing with her two children aged 6 and 3 years and her father-in-law Moideen Koya. The brother of the husband of Nazeera Rafeeque is also used to reside with them. Nazeera Rafeeque has taken the portion of the building for rent for the treatment of her son. Nazeera Rafeeque is leading a decent life. The accused 1 and 2 are having jealousy in the progress of the complainant and they were in enimical terms with her. The third accused has purchased some property from the father of the complainant and is residing in a house constructed in that property. On an occasion, the third accused had misbehaved with the complainant and the complainant had informed this to his wife. Therefore, the third accused is not in good terms with the complainant. Accused Nos.5, 6 and 8 are neighbours of the complainant. The 8th accused is running a workshop at Jail Road, Kozhikode. Accused Nos.5, 6 and 8 have demanded some property from the complainant for shifting the work shop of the 8th accused, as there is a threat of acquisition of land in Jail Road. The complainant was not ready to sell any property to them. Therefore, they are not in good terms with the complainant. Meanwhile, the accused have prepared a mass petition against the complainant obtaining signatures of 34 persons in it including some of the accused alleging that the complainant is not leading a moral life in her residence. The accused Nos.1 and 2 have also informed the father-in-law of the daughter of the complainant that the complainant has procured money for the marriage of her daughter by immoral life. Therefore, in-laws of the daughter of the complainant are averse to send her to the complainant's house. In the mass petition given before the Circle Inspector of Police on 11/11/2002, accused Nos.3 and 5 have not signed. However, they have persuaded others to sign the petition. Accused Nos.7, 9 and 10 along with some others met Nazeera Rafeeque and asked her to quit the house contending that the complainant is leading an immoral life in the house and Nazeera Rafeeque may have to face problems by living in such a case. Above conversation was heard by the complainant and a copy of the mass petition was handed over to Nazeera Rafeeque by them. On 07/12/2002 by 4 P.M. two partners of the partnership business namely, Pramod and Naser came to the house of the complainant for entrusting the money received from the business. While they were returning, the second accused and another unidentifiable person have assaulted them. A crime was registered against the second accused and another as Crime No.549 of 2002 by the police. However, on 20/12/2002 the second accused filed a false complaint against the complainant Nazer and one Roy contending that they have assaulted him. It was also alleged that the complainant is leading an immoral life in the hose along with a Muslim lady. The City Police Commissioner has endorsed in the complaint that action should be taken against the complainant and others and a case was registered as Crime No.578 of 2002 in this regard. The complainant has obtained bail in that case. Accused No.8 has informed Abdul Razak who is a family friend of the complainant that the complainant is leading an immoral life in the house and a Muslim lady is also helping her. He has also advised Abdul Razak not to visit the house of the complainant. By the conduct of the accused, the police have started to come to the house of the complainant now and then and the reputation of the complainant is badly affected in the eyes of people. The complainant caused to issue registered notices to the accused asking them to make public apology and pay compensation. The third accused has sent a reply directly. Other accused have sent replies through their Advocates. The accused have justified their action in the replies. Therefore, the complaint is filed for defamation.

(3.) IT is the above finding and order of acquittal sought to be challenged by filing an appeal for which the present Leave Petition is filed under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. Suffice to say that the order of acquittal was recorded by judgment dated 24/12/2004 in S.T.No.392 of 2004. Though the present Crl.L.P. was filed as early as on 30/03/2005, the same was not timely prosecuted.