SURAJ BABU Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein, who is the 5th accused in Crime No.747/2011 of Kundara Police station, now pending as CC No. 1558/2011 on the files of the JFMC I, Kollam is the petitioner herein. The second respondent is the defacto complainant therein, The case of the defacto complainant, as is discernible from Annexure A1 complaint, is that she got married to the first accused on 2/5/1985. Three children were born in the matrimonial relationship. The second accused is the mother of the first accused and accused Nos. 3 to 5 are the brothers of the first accused. The 5th accused is the youngest among the brothers. The crux of the allegation was that, after the marriage, the husband and the inlaws subjected her to matrimonial cruelty, both physically and mentally. Ultimately, she got separated from matrimonial home and set up her independent house. Private complaint was laid by her alleging various offences, which was numbered as CMP No.2638/2011 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court 1, Kollam, and referred for investigation to the police. Annexure A2 FIR was registered and after investigation, Annexure A3 final report was laid. Faced with the trial, the petitioner herein has approached this court with prayer to quash the proceedings on the ground that the facts on record did not justify his prosecution and that, he cannot be compelled to face agony of the trial. He sought to quash the proceedings on that premise.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the available records.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the complaint is absolutely vague, bereft of any details and general in nature. It was contended that specific allegations were raised against the petitioner only, in paragraphs 6,8 and 12 of the complaint. All other paragraphs either relate to general allegations or specifically attributed to the first accused alone. It was also contended that, allegations are absolutely bereft of details regarding the date, time and place where the incident occurred. A perusal of the complaint shows that, general allegations are raised regarding the conduct of the accused. Specific allegation against the petitioner herein are seen only at paragraph 6. In that there is an allegation that on 22/2/2011, accused Nos. 3,4 and 5 came to the house of the defacto complainant, threatened her and assaulted her. She was consequently hospitalized. In paragraph 8, there is a further allegation that on an unspecified day, the petitioner along with other brothers assaulted the defacto complainant and she had to be hospitalized. Third allegation, as seen in paragraph 12, is that 5th accused called the defacto complainant, abused her and threatened to set her house on fire.