JINEESH RAJ Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners herein have been arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 4 among the four accused in the instant Annexure-A Crime No.604/2019 of Kollam West Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.498A and 323 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code, on the basis of the FI Statement given by the lady de facto complainant on 01.07.2019 at about 5.20 p.m., in respect of the alleged incidents, which had occurred for the period from 26.11.2014 onwards. The lady de facto complainant in this crime is the wife of the 1st petitioner (A-1). Petitioners 2 to 4 herein (A-2 to A-4) are the father, mother and the sister respectively of the 1st petitioner (A-1).

(2.) The prosecution case in short is that after the marriage of the abovesaid spouses on 26.11.2014, the accused persons had inflicted cruelty and harassment on the lady de facto complainant and that her gold ornaments coming to 101 sovereigns given to her by her parents at the time of her marriage and about Rs.10 lakhs have been misappropriated by them by their extravagant life and that the 1st petitioner has frequently assaulted the lady and at that time the 1st petitioner (A-1) had completed MBBS degree and the accused persons had demanded that the lady's parents should give A-1 at least Rs.75 lakhs for getting him admitted for MD course in an unaided Medical College and the lady's father could manage to pay them only Rs.50 lakhs and infuriated by that, the accused persons, more particularly, A-1 had frequently assaulted and harassed her and in these series of harassments meted out on her by A-1, the other accused persons had actively collaborated and helped him to inflict such cruelty and harassments on her, etc. it appears that the 1st petitioner (A-1) is now a Post Graduate degree holder in Medicine and the lady de facto complainant has duly passed her MBBS degree and is now undergoing her Post Graduate medical studies. Due to the marital discord, the lady de facto complainant is now in Mangalore, in connection with her Post Graduate medical studies and her child is with her parents and the spouses are now living separately.

(3.) Heard Sri.T.I.Unniraja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the official respondents and Sri.M.T.Suresh Kumar, learned Advocate appearing for the lady de facto complainant. Sri. M.T.Suresh Kumar, learned Advocate appearing for the lady de facto complainant would seriously object to the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners and would point out that earlier when the petitioners had approached the Sessions Court for grant of anticipatory bail, parties were referred for mediation process and that the petitioners with the heinous and evil designs had instituted a false complaint against the lady before the police authorities concerned in order to prevent her from approaching the mediation centre and that she is apprehending threats and harassment by the petitioners, more particularly, A-1 if they are let out on bail. Further, Sri.M.T.Suresh Kumar, learned Advocate appearing for the lady de facto complainant would submit on the basis of instructions of his party that his party is willing for any mediatory efforts and the 1st petitioner should take a clear stand, as to whether he is interested to continue with the matrimonial relationship and if he is not so interested, then it may be better in the interest of all concerned to lawfully dissolve the relationship, so that parties could proceed with their life, without the constant threats and harassments that she is now facing from the accused persons in this crime.