2025:KER:16498 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1946 CRL.MC NO. 8816 OF 2023 CRIME NO.888/2022 OF VADAKARA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE IN CC NO.354 OF 2023 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VADAKARA PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.6 & 7: 1 JUHNA N T AGED 32 YEARS W/O AJEESH C V, ELEGANCE HOUSE, ICE PLANT ROAD, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673305 2 SHARBINA AGED 30 YEARS W/O HAMNAS C V, PALLIPPURAYIL VEEDU, KOTTAKKAL, IRINGAL,MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676503 BY ADVS. A.RANJITH NARAYANAN A.SIMI RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALAREPRESENTING SI OF POLICE, VATAKARA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE RURAL, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 682031 2 AYSHA HANNA D/O K P ABDUL NAJEEB, VAZHAYIL HOUSE, J T ROAD, P.O. VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673101 BY ADVS. SRI. E.C BINEESH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Crl.M.C.No.8816 of 2023 2025:KER:16498 - 2 - SMT.R.SHABANA FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 13.02.2025, THE COURT ON 25.02.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.8816 of 2023 2025:KER:16498 - 3 - C. JAYACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.No.8816 of 2023 ------------------------------------ Dated, this the 25th day of February, 2025 ORDER This matter was heard and reserved for orders on 13.02.2025 on the premise that the offences alleged is one under Section 498 A of the Penal Code. However, it was pointed out by the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent today, that the offences under Sections 406 and 415 are also alleged, in respect of which, the parties were not heard. 2. The matter was again heard and records perused. 3. The prosecution allegation going by Annexure-A2 final report is as follows: The 2nd respondent herein married the 1st accused in Crime no.888/2022 of Vatakara Police Station on 07.03.2021 and while they were living as husband and wife in the residence of the 1st accused, accused nos.1 to 7 have physically and mentally harassed the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant Crl.M.C.No.8816 of 2023 2025:KER:16498 - 4 - seeking more gold ornaments and money, besides misappropriating 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rupees three lakhs given to the defacto complainant at the time of her marriage, thereby committing criminal breach of trust. The 1st accused was suffering from the disease Multiple Sclerosis, which was suppressed by accused nos.1 to 7, thus committing the offences under Section 498 A, 406 and 415 of the Penal Code. 4. This Court will straight away peruse the statement of the defacto complainant/2nd respondent, available at running page no.33 of the paper book. She would state that when the marriage proposal came, she was given to understand that the 1st accused (proposed husband) is an Engineer in Electronics and Communication and he is employed at Saudi as an officer having family status visa. After the marriage, the elder brother of the 1st accused/husband by name Hamnas and also, the father and mother of the 1st accused demanded 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments for being pledged, for the purpose of a shopping complex being constructed by them. The said gold ornaments Crl.M.C.No.8816 of 2023 2025:KER:16498 - 5 - have not been released so far. Pursuant to the marriage, the defacto complainant was harassed alleging that she is black in colour and that the 1st accused/husband could have got better bride. The details of the harassment are narrated in detail. However, there is no necessity to refer to the same, except insofar as the allegations against the present petitioners (accused nos.6 and 7) are concerned. The solitary allegation is contained in paragraph no.3 of her statement to the effect that along with the father and mother of her husband, the brothers of the husband and their wives used to harass her by saying various things. The defacto complainant was accused that she is going for studies to flirt with boys. There is also an allegation that the petitioners along with other persons have suppressed the fact that the 1st accused/husband was suffering from a serious disease by name Multiple Sclerosis. 5. It could thus be seen that there is no specific allegation against the petitioners (accused nos.6 and 7) in the crime in question, except a passing reference that they Crl.M.C.No.8816 of 2023 2025:KER:16498 - 6 - used to cause difficulties to the defacto complainant/2nd respondent by making allegation against her. The allegation is not specific. It is not clear as regards the specific overt act, if any, committed by the petitioners. All what is available is a vague and omnibus allegation that they have caused difficulties to the defacto complainant and that they have alleged that the defacto complainant is pursuing her studies to flirt with boys. 6. This Court has also perused the complaint preferred by the defacto complainant, produced at Annexure-A1. There, in paragraph no.7, the allegation against the petitioners (accused nos.6 and 7) is that, they used to tease her body as dwarf and fat, thus committing body shaming. There also the allegation is there against the petitioners as well, along with others, in the matter of alleged suppression of disease for the purpose of extracting her gold ornaments and money. 7. In Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana [2024 KHC 6257], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, if a person is made to Crl.M.C.No.8816 of 2023 2025:KER:16498 - 7 - face a trial on some general, sweeping allegations, without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing, but abuse of a process of Court. In Digambar v. State of Maharashtra [2024 KHC Online 6737], the Supreme Court held that vague and omnibus allegations in the F.I.R., without specific instances of harassment or cruelty, are not sufficient to constitute the offences under Section 498 A. It was also held that the allegations must reveal the existence of cruelty with the intention to cause grave injury or to drive the victim to commit suicide. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also cautioned about the practise of roping in family members into the matrimonial dispute without specific allegations. It was held that generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis of criminal prosecution. Courts have been directed to scrutinise such cases carefully and to prevent misuse of legal processes and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. Crl.M.C.No.8816 of 2023 2025:KER:16498 - 8 - 8. Gauged in the touchstone of the above referred judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court finds that the allegations against the present petitioners (accused nos.6 and 7) falls short of the legal requirements so as to constitute the offence under Section 498 A. Accordingly, this Court finds that offence under Section 498 A is not attracted against the petitioners. Rather, the allegations raised in the complaint, as also, in the statement given by the defacto complainant are not sufficient to implicate the petitioners to that offence. 9. Now, coming to the offences under Sections 406 and 415, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant would invite the attention of this Court to the complaint preferred before the learned Magistrate, specifically to paragraph no.2 therein. It is alleged that, on 02.01.2021, accused nos.1 to 3 (husband, father and mother) have come to see the girl and thereafter, on 11.01.2021, accused nos.2, 3, 6 and 7, along with other relatives, have come to the house of the defacto complainant with sweets and dress. Upon being informed that Crl.M.C.No.8816 of 2023 2025:KER:16498 - 9 - the groom has liked the bride, the marriage was fixed thereafter. These are the allegations contained in paragraph no.2. Based on the above allegations, it is the submission made by the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent that accused nos.6 and 7 were instrumental in getting the marriage fixed and they were also aware of the serious disease of the husband/A1, for which, he was undergoing treatment. In support of the disease, learned Counsel would invite this Court’s attention to the statement under Section 161 of CW10, Dr.V.G.Pradeep Kumar, which would state that the 1st accused was suffering from Demyelinatiang Disorder-Multiple Sclerosis. The Doctor has also opined that the disease can only be treated, but cannot be cured. It is in that sense that the offence under Section 415 is alleged against the petitioners herein. Learned Counsel, thereafter, invited the attention of this Court to the last paragraph in Annexure-A1 complaint, wherein allegations are made against accused persons generally that the factum of the serious disease has been suppressed and had it been revealed, the marriage could not Crl.M.C.No.8816 of 2023 2025:KER:16498 - 10 - have taken place at all. The above conduct of the accused persons amounts to breach of trust and cheating, is the allegation leveled in the last paragraph. Thus, according to the learned Counsel, the petitioners are liable to face the charges under the above Sections of the Penal Code. 10. The above submissions were seriously refuted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. It is argued that the petitioners are wives of brothers of the husband/A1 and they owe no responsibility. It was then submitted that the allegations are not correct and that the petitioners had no knowledge of the disease, if any, of the 1st accused/husband. Mere participation of the petitioners cannot be an event which can be taken stock of to find them liable for offences under Section 415, or for that matter, Section 406 of the Penal Code, is the final submission made. 11. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court finds merit in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Crl.M.C.No.8816 of 2023 2025:KER:16498 - 11 - Even going by the allegations in paragraph no.2 of Annexure-A1 complaint, all what is decipherable is that, the present petitioners (accused nos.6 and 7) were also present, along with accused nos.2 and 3 and with other relatives, on 11.01.2021, on which date, dress and sweets were given as gifts to the defacto complainant. The marriage was fixed thereafter, going by the averments in paragraph no.2. Merely because the petitioners (accused nos.6 and 7) were also present on a date before the date of fixing the marriage, along with other relatives, for the purpose of giving sweets, dress etc will not make them liable for the offences under Sections 415 and 406 of the Penal Code, in the context of the alleged suppression of disease. Apart from the above allegation in Annexure-A1 complaint, there is not even a specific allegation to the effect that the petitioners (accused nos.6 and 7) were aware of the alleged disease of the 1st accused/husband. What is contained in the concluding paragraph no.13 is a general, omnibus allegation that accused nos.1 to 7 have acted in such a manner, so as to grab the gold ornaments Crl.M.C.No.8816 of 2023 2025:KER:16498 - 12 - and money of the defacto complainant. Such vague and general allegations are not sufficient to mulct criminal liability on the petitioners, in the context of the offences under Sections 406 and 415 of the Penal Code. In the circumstances, the charge on the basis of the said offences will also stand quashed. In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and all further proceedings in Crime no.888/2023 of Vatakara Police Station will stand quashed as against the petitioners (accused nos.6 and 7). Sd/- C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE SKP/27-02 Crl.M.C.No.8816 of 2023 2025:KER:16498 - 13 - APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 8816/2023 PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR ALONG WITH FIS DATED 18/11/2022IN CRIME NO.888/2022 OF VATAKARA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE RURAL ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT NO.241/2023 IN CRIME NO.888/2022 OF VATAKARA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE RURAL RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE R2(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION GIVEN BY DR. UMMER.K, SENIOR CONSULTANT AND CHIEF DEPARTMENT OF NEUROLOGY, BABY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, KOZHIKODE BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ANNEXURE R2(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION GIVEN BY DR. V.G PRADEEP KUMAR, SENIOR CONSULTANT AND DEPUTY CHIEF , DEPARTMENT OF NEUROLOGY, BABY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, KOZHIKODE ANNEXURE R2(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE ADVOCATE NOTICE DATED 07.11.2022 RECEIVED TO THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ANNEXURE R2(D) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 10.11.2022 SENT BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ANNEXURE R2(E) TRUE COPY OF THE GIFT DEED NO 2188/1/2022 DATED 11.11.2022 EXECUTED BY THE 2ND ACCUSED IN FAVOUR OF 4TH ACCUSED ANNEXURE R2(F) TRUE COPY OF THE GIFT DEED 2189/1/2022 DATED 11.11.2022 EXECUTED BY THE 2ND ACCUSED IN FAVOUR OF 5TH ACCUSED ANNEXURE R2(G) A TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED 06.11.2023 ANNEXURE R2(H) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CRL MC 9443 OF 2022 DATED 15.11.2024 OF THIS COURT TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE