LAWS(KER)-2019-10-327

ARUN G. NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On October 22, 2019
Arun G. Nair Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused Nos. 1 to 3 in C.C. No. 487/2017 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Kanjirappilly arising from Crime No. 240/2017 of Ponkunnam Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 498A, 294(b), 323 read with Section 34 IPC are the petitioners herein.

(2.) According to the prosecution, the 1st accused was working as a helper in an old age home at Australia. Suppressing it and posing as an MBA decree holder with degree in Hospital Administration, he married one Monisha, the daughter of the de facto complainant, on 01.09.2014. It was alleged that, before marriage he had misrepresented that for obtaining a visa to the wife, joint property in the ownership of both persons was mandatory. An item of property that stood in the name of the de facto complainant was got assigned to Monisha and the 1st petitioner. Thereafter, 1st petitioner took Monisha to Australia. While they were living together as husband and wife, the 1st accused with the aid and support of accused Nos. 2 and 3, who are sister and mother of the 1st accused, harassed her both physically and mentally in connection with demand for dowry. They demanded more dowry. It was alleged that this drove Monisha to commit suicide on 07.02.2017 at Australia. Later, a complaint was laid by the de facto complainant/mother alleging that Monisha was subjected to matrimonial cruelty, which had led to her suicide and that the accused have committed various offences. Crime was registered and after investigation, final report was laid against all the accused. Accused appeared before the court below and are facing trial.

(3.) Accused challenges the proceeding invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. on various grounds. It was contended that the incident occurred outside India and that the 1st accused was an Australian citizen. No previous sanction as contemplated under Section 188 of the Code of criminal procedure was obtained and hence the prosecution was bad. It was contended that the ingredients under Sections 294(b), 406 and 420 IPC were not made out from the facts alleged. The ingredients of offence under Section 498A were also not made out. It was further contended that, as against accused Nos. 2 and 3, there was absolutely no material to fasten any criminal liability on them.