SIVARAMAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal miscellaneous case has been filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 in C.C.No.689/2019 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Thiruvananthapuram, arising out of Crime No.1318 of 2016 of Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, seeking quashment of Annexur A1-FIR, Annexure-A2 final report and further proceedings thereof.

(2.) The prosecution case is that the 1st accused married the defacto complainant/2nd respondent herein on 19/12/2007 as per Hindu religious rites and thereafter they resided at the family house of the 1st accused in Mavelikkara. Later she went to Abudhabi, where the 1st accused has been employed. Prosecution case further is that at the time of marriage, parents of the defacto complainant entrusted 153 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the 1st accused. After the marriage, 17 cents of property situated at Kalliyoor, Thiruvananthapuram, also got registered in the name of the defacto complainant by her father. During stay, the 1st accused subjected her to physical and mental cruelty. The specific allegation is that during the month of April, 2010, the accused brought the defacto complainant to the residence of his parents abroad and he attempted to sell the gold ornaments. When the defacto complainant opposed the same, there arose a dispute and at this juncture, the 1st accused manhandled the defacto complainant and accused Nos.2 to 4 encouraged the same. During the month of June, 2010, the defacto complainant returned from Abudhabi and started to reside at the family house of the 1st accused in Mavelikkara. During the month of September, 2010, the 1st accused sold 153 sovereigns of gold ornaments, which were given by the parents of the defacto complainant at the time of her marriage, and the 1st accused purchased Volkswagen Car bearing Registration No.KL.31.B.9955 and the remaining amount was entrusted to the 4th accused to purchase a flat in Palakkad. Thereafter the 1st accused demanded more dowry and accordingly as demanded by the 1st accused, Rs.29.00 lakh was obtained by accused Nos.2 and 3. The specific and most serious allegation further is that during the subsistence of the marriage between the 1st accused and the defacto complainant, the 1st accused solemnised his second marriage with one Simran on 21/5/2013 after suppressing his earlier marriage with the defacto complainant. This is the base on which prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Ss. 494, 498A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short).

(3.) Even though the learned counsel for the petitioners argued at length to contend that cruelty alleged against the petitioners not at all made out, and also attempted to establish that the second marriage effected by the 1st accused with Simran was not known to the petitioners, the prosecution records do not justify his contentions.