SHAFEEK Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein have been arrayed as accused 1 to 4 among the four accused in the instant Crime No.822/2019 of Chavara Thekkumbhagom Police Station, Kollam District for offences punishable under Sections 498A , 312 and 34 of the IPC The said crime has been registered on the basis of the F.I. Statement given by the lady de facto complainant on 23.8.2019 in respect of the alleged incidents which happened for the period from 21.4.2014 to 2.6.2018. The lady de facto complainant in this case is the wife of the 1 st petitioner (A1). The 2nd to 4th petitioners herein (A2 to A4) are the brother, brother's wife and mother respectively of the 1st petitioner herein (A1).

(2.) The prosecution case in short is that after the marriage of the above said spouses, the petitioners herein in furtherance of their common intention have subjected the lady de facto complainant to cruelty and harassment on several occasions and that they have demanded more assets from her parents and other near relatives. Further, the lady would complain that movable properties including precious gold ornaments misappropriated by accused 1 to 4 . Further that accused 1 to 4, more particularly accused No.1 had manhandled her as she did not accede to the legal demands of the accused persons etc. It is also alleged that due to the cruelty and harassment consistently suffered by her, she was under the mental strain even during the pregnancy stage and the feeters developed complications and she had to undergo abortion etc. Accordingly, it is alleged that the petitioners have committed the above said offences.

(3.) This Court has heard in detail Sri. K. Rakesh, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State and Dr.Pauly Mathew Muricken, learned counsel appearing for the additional respondent lady de facto complainant. This Court had endeavoured to impress upon the rival parties to attempt for mediation settlement. The good efforts taken by the learned Sessions Court could not succeed, mainly on account of the attitude taken by the petitioners. This Court again suggested to the parties that it may be better to examine the scope of mediatory efforts and since more time may be consumed in the said process, the matter could be remitted to the Sessions Court to consider the plea for anticipatory bail and also for referring the parties to the nearest District Mediation Centre. The learned Public Prosecutor does not have any serious objection to the said course of action. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and the learned Advocate appearing for the lady de facto complainant were seriously requested by this Court to get instructions from the respective parties.