SHYAMALA BHASKER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C' for short) by the 2nd accused in C.C.No.637/2018 on the files of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram and the prayers herein are as under:

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the documents including the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, who is the 2nd accused in C.C.No.637/2018 is not liable to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), since the prosecution materials do not suggest any overt acts at the instance of the petitioner to attract the ingredients of offence punishable under Sec. 498A of IPC. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner further that as per the F.I statement, the only allegation against the 2nd accused is that the 2nd accused became a spectator while the defacto complainant was persecuted at the instance of the 1st accused and she did not interfere to stop the same. Accordingly, it is submitted that the case against the 2nd accused is liable to be quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed a latest decision of the Apex Court reported in [2024 KHC OnLine 6257 : 2024 (3) KHC SN 24 : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 343 : 2024 KLT OnLine 1481], Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana to canvass the point that the courts must appreciate the materials and all quarrels must be weighed from that point of view in determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular case. A very technical and hyper sensitive approach would prove to be disastrous for the very intend of the marriage. Paragraph 25 of the decision has been referred to contend that some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, is nothing but abuse of the process of the court. In paragraph 25, the Apex Court held as under: