T.P. SHAMSUDHEEN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in the instant crime No.1042/2019 of Valapattananam Police Station, Kannur District, which has been registered for offences punishable under Section 354 of the IPC. The crime has been so registered on the basis of First Information Statement given by the lady defacto complainant on 10.11.2019 at about 5 P.M in respect of the alleged incidents which have happened on the previous day (09.11.2019) at about 9.45 A.M in the morning.

(2.) The prosecution case in short that on 09.11.2019 at about 9.30 A.M, the petitioner/accused had came to the tailoring shop of the lady defacto complainant and he had purchased a dress and thereafter while going, he had caught hold of the breast of the lady defacto complainant and that he has committed the above said offences. The petitioner has been arrested in this case on 11.11.2019 and after his remand has been under custody since then.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the above said allegations are false and fabricated and that as a matter of fact, after the petitioner had purchased the dress item he found that it was having serious defects and he insisted that he should be refunded the money and altercations had taken place and apprehending the petitioner might raise a complaint against the quality of the dress in appropriate proceedings and Consumer Forum etc. The lady defacto complainant has now raised the false allegations only to spite and put pressure on the petitioner so as not to litigate against her. Further that the lady defacto complainant in this case is already the complainant in case alleging the offence of rape as per Section 376 of the IPC in crime No.545/2014 of the same Police Station which is now pending as SC No. 430/2016 and that the allegations made by her therein is to the effect that she was having an affair with the accused therein and that he had assured her that he would marry her and thus on the basis of that assurance he had sexual intercourse with her, etc and that later he has breached the said promise and has cheated her and that he had committed the above said offences etc. Petitioner would point out that he could reliably learn that such allegations are false and that this is also clear point that the lady defacto complainant is prone to make such false allegations and the allegations made against the petitioner herein are also untenable and false etc. Further it is stated that as the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for the last 22 days, his continued detention may not be necessary and this Court may order to release him on regular bail.