JOSE THETTAYIL Vs. STATION HOUSE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Astounding, incredible and extraordinary allegations in a complaint, unique in nature and character, probably first of its kind in judicial history of the Nation, and may also be the last, resulted in registration of Crime No. 2141 of 2013 of Aluva East Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as I.P.C.). The petitioner herein is the first accused in the said case and his son is the second accused. The first accused is a sitting MLA and a prominent person enjoying wide popularity among the people of his constituency. The short case put forward by the petitioner is that even assuming that all the allegations in the complaint are taken as true, they do not constitute the ingredients necessary to attract Section 376 of I.P.C. and if that be so, no offence is made out and the complaint and the FIR produced as Annexures A1 and A2 are only to be quashed. In other words, the petitioner wishes to abort the proceedings at the threshold.

(2.) In the light of the said fact, it becomes necessary before going into the various aspects to refer to the allegations in the complaint in detail.

(3.) The complaint is produced as Annexure A1. It is in vernacular language. It is addressed to the Superintendent of Police (Rural), Aluva. It is undated. According to the complainant, she has studied up to MCA. She says that her father owns a business in timber and runs a mill under the name and style St. Augustine Packing Industries and Saw Mill in Manjapra Village. The business commenced from 1.1.2007. Shri Jose Thettayil, MLA from Angamaly, the petitioner herein, was invited for the inauguration of the Mill. The complainant too had attended the function. According to the complainant, accepting the invitation, the MLA had come to attend the function. Likewise, many other persons, including the Panchayat President, also attended the function. At the function, the complainant was introduced to the petitioner for the first time. The residential house, where the complainant resides, and the Saw Mill are situate in the same compound. The complainant used to go to the business concern to help her father. On the next day of the inauguration, the MLA had made a call to the Saw Mill office. On hearing the sound of the complainant, he asked whether it was Noby, the daughter of Augustine. The complainant replied in the affirmative and she says that her mobile number was sought for. She replied that currently she did not have a mobile connection. Later on, she, for business purposes, took a mobile connection with Idea. About four months thereafter, the MLA came to the office and stated that he was on his way for inauguration at some other place. The complainant had her mobile phone with her and when the number was sought for by the MLA, it was given to him. According to the complainant, thereafter, the MLA used to phone her occasionally. From the beginning of 2010, the MLA began to call her frequently. Whenever he called, he enquired about the welfare of the complainant and about the affairs of the business that is being carried on by her father. One day, it is claimed that, she asked the MLA why he was calling her so often. He then said to have told her that his son was studying for MBA in Ireland and he desired that his son marries the complainant when he returns from Ireland. The MLA indicated that he was planning to meet her father and talk about the marriage. Thereafter, he called the complainant frequently. While so, in the beginning of 2012, the son of the petitioner returned to his native place and for the next few days she was called over phone by the MLA and she was informed that his son had returned home and asked the complainant to come over to Anns India Exim Private Limited at Cheriyavappilaserry. The complainant went there. There apart from him, his eldest son Adarsh, two Directors, Cheriyan and Smiley, and other staff were present. Then the petitioner introduced his son to the complainant and it is stated that for the next five months Adarsh, the eldest son of the MLA used to attend his office. The concern was engaged in sale of vessels. As per the complainant, before that, in 2010, with the help of her father, the complainant had purchased a flat in Periyar Residency, Chembakassery Road, Aluva. The number of the apartment is 11-C. A few interior decorations were done. After the purchase, the MLA had come to see the flat. He is said to have opined that the existing interior decorations were of old style and so also the furniture and advised her to modernize the furniture and interior decorations. With the help of her father, the complainant carried out interior decorations worth Rs. 40 Lakhs. During that period, while the work was in progress, the MLA used to visit the flat and give directions and suggestion. The complainant says that after meeting Adarsh, she went to the business concern of the petitioner to purchase household articles for the flat. After the purchase, Adarsh offered to accompany her to deliver the articles. She agreed. Since there was a marriage proposal between the complainant and Adarsh, she did not feel anything unusual in the conduct. She and Adarsh reached the flat with the articles purchased by her. After keeping the articles in the flat, they returned. Thereafter, on several occasions, Adarsh used to call the complainant and on many occasions they went to the complainant's flat. On some occasions, the conduct of Adarsh crossed the limits, but since the complainant thought that as she has to marry him, she did not raise any resistance or objection to the said conduct. The complainant admits that she had sexual intercourse 4 or 5 times with Adarsh. While things stood so, the complainant came to know from her friends that there was a marriage proposal for Adarsh with some other girl. The complainant came to know the same in August, 2012. After she came to know about the same, when Adarsh came to meet her, he was asked about the same and he said that there was no substance in that rumour. Doubts and suspicion remained in the mind of the complainant. She felt that clear evidence of the real relationship between her and Adarsh was absolutely necessary. Therefore, she purchased a web camera and installed it in her bed room. The complainant says that thereafter when Adarsh came to her flat they had indulged in sexual intercourse which was caught in the web camera. Subsequently, without; much delay, Adarsh went to Bombay. He had gone to Bombay promising that he will return from Bombay after about four months and then the marriage can be conducted. During August, the complainant says that she came to know that other marriage proposals were being mooted for Adarsh. Thereafter, the MLA is said to have contacted her and asked her to meet him with the key of the flat. The complainant went in her car near to CSA Auditorium and picked up the petitioner and they went together to the flat. On that day, the MLA is said to have behaved indecently to the complainant. That conduct of the petitioner was quite contrary to the conduct of a father whose son was going to marry the complainant. His conduct was with ill-motive. The complainant says that she was surprised and pained by the conduct of the MLA which made her to suspect that he was not interested in the marriage. She felt that she was being betrayed after promising to conduct the marriage and sexually exploiting her, which she could not bear and tolerate. The complainant felt extremely disappointed. She then felt that if she ever got an opportunity, she would teach the MLA a lesson. During that period, MLA used to very frequently call her over phone and kept on promising that his son would marry her. While so, in the first week of October, 2012, the MLA called her and said that they had to go to the flat urgently. The complainant went in her car and picked up the MLA from near CSA Auditorium and they together went to the flat. As soon as they got down from the car, MLA started talking to someone over phone. According to the complainant, seizing the opportunity, she went to the flat using the elevator and as soon as she opened the door, she switched on the web camera. Soon thereafter the MLA came inside and caught hold of the complainant. As per the complaint, though the complainant felt annoyed, since she had to realize her aim, she submitted without offering any sort of resistance and they indulged in sexual intercourse. Thereafter, they returned from the flat. When she later verified the web camera, she found that the camera had not caught the scenes with the MLA. Even after that episode, the MLA continued to phone her. While so, on 21.10.2012 again he asked her to come to take him to the flat. The complainant went in her car and picked up the MLA from near CSA Auditorium and went to her flat. The complainant says that she reached the flat earlier than the MLA and switched on the web camera. Later, as soon as the MLA entered into the flat, he caught hold of the complainant and they had sexual intercourse and they returned from the flat. The intercourse that took place on 21.10.2012 was clearly available in the web camera. Thereafter, though the MLA insisted to go to the flat, she did not agree or heed. Ever since then, the complainant says that she met the MLA on several occasions and demanded that her marriage with his son be conducted, otherwise, she would make the contents of the CD with her public and that would cause considerable humiliation and embarrassment to his family A person by name Martin related to the MLA came and told her family that the marriage will be conducted in May, 2013. But nothing transpired thereafter. The complainant says that she began to believe that she was being cheated. According to the complainant, she felt that it was with the said object in mind that the MLA on the first occasion had telephoned her. It is stated that the sexual intercourses were not with her proper consent. She also says that she was afraid that if she did not heed to the desire of the MLA, he would not conduct the marriage with his son. The complainant winds up the complaint by requesting the authorities concerned to resort to legal steps to have her grievances redressed. It is also stated that the opposite party, being a sitting MLA and former Minister, if she gives the complaint to the local police, he would wield his influence and stall any further action on the complaint, and so, she did not file the complaint in the local police station. The complaint is signed by her and her mobile number is given in the complaint.