K.N.PRABHAKARAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 4 petitioners herein are the 4 accused (accused Nos.1 to 4) in Crime No.631/2019 of Ernakulam Central Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.354, 294(b) and 506 r/w Sec.34 of the I.P.C. The said crime has been registered on 19.3.2019 on the basis of Anx-1 FI statement furnished by the 2nd respondent-lady defacto complainant. The contents of FI statement has given in column No.12 of FIR reads as follows: ...[VARNACULAR TEXT UMITTED]...

(2.) It appears that the lady defacto complainant's father has let out his property at Vyttila in Ernakulam on lease to a company of which the 1st applicant's son is the Director, for running a restaurant by the said company concerned. It appears that that the lessor had issued notice for determining the lease and there are disputes between the parties as to the rental arrears and the consequential refund of the security deposit that was given by the lessee to the lessor as per the lease agreement. The gist of the allegations in the abovesaid complaint is that on 19.3.2019 the lady defacto complainant was asked by the 1 st applicant to reach Taj Gateway Hotel, Ernakulam, to sort out the lease arrangement between the parents of the complainant and the son of the 1st applicant and the 1st applicant in the company of applicants 2 to 4 had reached Taj Coffee Shop and they had discussion for about 3 - 1/2 hours and it is alleged that the applicants asked the defacto complainant to pay Rs.2 Lakhs, which was given as security deposit for the premises which was leased out to the son of the 1 st applicant and it was further alleged that she was asked not to appear in O.S.No.242/2019, which was filed by her and pending before the civil court concerned, which was posted to 20.3.2019. It is further alleged that the 3rd petitioner, with whom the defacto complainant had no connection, has also used abusive words and it is further alleged that he snatched her mobile phone from her and hit her breast with his hands and pushed her away and the 2 nd applicant had also used force on her and used abusive words. The applicants 3 and 4 herein have been described in the FI statement as persons identifiable. It is on the basis of the abovesaid FI statement that the abovesaid crime has been registered as stated hereinabove. Whereas the applicants' have a different version that it was the defacto complainant who had requested them for discussion and the Hotel was arranged as a common venue and the 2nd petitioner is the lawyer/Advocate concerned, who had drafted the lease agreement which was executed in 2009 and the 4 th applicant was requested by the 1 st applicant to be present as she is a lady so that the discussion between the defacto complainant and the 1 st applicant could take place in the presence of another lady. That the 3 rd applicant is the husband of the 4th applicant and he had gone there as per the request of the 4th applicant, being family friends of the 1st applicant. That the defacto complainant was not at all agreeable to the very suggestion put forward by the 1 st applicant and that later she was screaming and shouting at the applicants and the applicants were forced to leave from the place of discussion and she gone after them and taken photos and the 3rd applicant prevented from taking photos and left the place immediately. It is further pointed out that there is specific averments in the FI statement is that "this man snatched my phone from my hand and while doing so hit my breast with his hands and pushed away" and that on this basis, it is urged by the applicants that there is no allegations under Sec.354 of the I.P.C and even according to the defacto complainant, the 1st applicant has left the place and Anx-8 is the draft note prepared by the defacto complainant regarding the discussion held on 19.3.2019, and it is thereafter, the lady defacto complainant had gone the Central Police Station, Ernakulam and lodged the complaint.

(3.) When the matter had come up for admission before this Court on 26.3.2019, this Court had made a query to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants/accused as to whether there is any scope for mediated settlement as it appeared to this Court that the impugned crime has originated on the basis of property dispute between the parties. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that he would pursue his parties to come to the mediation table and it is on that basis that this Court had then directed the counsel for the applicants to ensure that formal application is filed to implead the lady defacto complainant in the present proceedings so as to ascertain whether she is willing to undergo the process of mediation through the Mediation Centre attached to this Court. Notice was issued to the 2 nd respondent- lady defacto complainant, who appeared personally before this Court on 2.4.2019 and today (4.4.2019). The 2 nd respondent stated that she has not appeared through any counsel and she will personally appear and make submissions and sought time to file written submissions and the said written submissions have also been filed. The 2nd respondent has stated that she is not in any manner interested for any further discussions or mediatory efforts with the applicants and that they have indulged in violence and they have used abusive words as disclosed in the FI statement, etc.