T.P. SUBAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in the instant Crime No.405/2019 of Pattambi Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.341, 323 & 354 of the IPC. The above case has been registered on the basis of the FIS given by the lady defacto complainant on 9.12.2019 at about 8 pm, in respect of the alleged incident which happened on the same day (9.12.2019) at about 1 pm.

(2.) The prosecution case in short is that, the lady defacto complainant aged 51 years and the petitioner accused aged 51 years were co-accused in the matter in Anx.A1 C.C.No.1596/2013, in which both of them were acquitted, and the defacto complainant therein had preferred a criminal leave petition before this Court to impugn the said Anx.A1 judgment of acquittal, and after receipt of notice on the said criminal leave petition, the lady defacto complainant had gone to the residence of the petitioner accused to discuss about the modalities of sharing the fee of the lawyer and in that regard, she had gone to the residence of the petitioner on 9.12.2019 at about 1 pm, and she demanded that the petitioner should bear the lawyer's fee in the criminal leave petition, in which both are co-accused. Thereupon the petitioner raised some altercations and he had caught hold of her breast and hit on her face and caught hold of her face and hit on the wall, and thereby he has committed the abovesaid offences.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the abovesaid allegations are false and fabricated, and that it is the admitted case of the lady defacto complainant that it was she who had come to the residence of the petitioner on 9.12.2019 at 1 pm, and that she would fully admit that she had demanded that the petitioner should pay the lawyer's fee in the above case, and that the other allegations are absolutely false and fabricated, and that the petitioner refuses and pointed out that he can only bear the fee for engaging his lawyer and that the lady has to ensure that she may engage any lawyer of her choice, and that it is for the lady to pay fees to the lawyer concerned, and the lady left in a huff and threatened that action would be taken against him. Further that, the lady defacto complainant is a money lender and is involved in 21 other cases and she has made the instant allegations only to put pressure on the petitioner so that he would compromise with her, and shall also pay her lawyer's fee from his pocket, etc. Accordingly it is urged that this Court may grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to appropriate conditions.