Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MRS. LIZZY PAULOSE, W/O. P.J. PAULOSE versus POORNIMA MARIA KURIEN

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


MRS. LIZZY PAULOSE, W/O. P.J. PAULOSE v. POORNIMA MARIA KURIEN - Crl MC No. 163 of 2005(A) [2006] RD-KL 3352 (13 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 163 of 2005(A)

1. MRS. LIZZY PAULOSE, W/O. P.J. PAULOSE,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. POORNIMA MARIA KURIEN,
... Respondent

2. DR. RENJU JOHN MATHEW,

3. JOHN MATHEW, SPO MATHEW,

4. MARIAMMA JOHN, W/O. JOHN MATHEW,

5. SANGIT GEORGE, W/O. JOSE GEORGE

6. JOSE GEORGE, S/O. GEORGE

7. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED

For Petitioner :SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR

For Respondent :SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU

Dated :13/12/2006

O R D E R

K.R. UDAYABHANU, J


============================
CRL. M.C. Nos. 163 & 329 OF 2005
============================

Dated this the 13th day of December 2006

O R D E R

The petitioner in Crl. M.C. No. 163/2005 is the 4th accused who is the maternal aunt of the 1st accused/ husband of the complainant. The accused in Crl. M.C. 329/2005 are the parents, sister-in-law and the husband of the sister in law of the complainant. The allegations are under sections 498 (A), 313 r/w 120(B) IPC. The crime was registered on the basis of the private complaint filed which was forwarded to the police under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is the case of the petitioner in Crl. M.C No. 329/2005 that entire allegations in the complaint are false. It is pointed out that in the complaint, which is a very detailed one, there is no specific allegations against the petitioners as such. It is further stressed that the complainant/second respondent and the 1st accused immediately after the marriage were living in Chennai for sometime and thereafter in U.K. There are no accusations at all for the complainant against the rest of the accused other than the first accused. CRL. M.C. Nos. 163 & 329 OF 2005 2

2. It is pointed out by the counsel for the petitioners in Crl. M.C. No. 329/05 that it is evident in the complaint, the copy of which is Annexure 3, that the petitioners 1 and 2/ Accused 2 and 3, the parents were settled at Al Ain in UAE and they came to India only a week before the marriage. I find that in Ext.A1 complaint, which is a complaint consisting of 11 pages and full with allegations against the first accused, there is only a casual reference against the rest of the accused other than A1. It is mentioned that after few days of the marriage 1st accused and the complainant went to Chennai and were residing therein and subsequently they left for U.K. It is seen from the recitals in the complaint that they did not come back together from U.K also. On the occasions when she came back alone and resided with her parents the complainant realised that the only reason for the frequent quarrel initiated by the 1st accused was on account of the ill-advice of the rest of the accused. It is stated that when the couple were residing in Chennai accused 2 to 6 used to have conversation with A1 over telephone and used to give ill-advise and hence collective conspiracy is alleged. It is alleged that the rest of the accused instigated the 1st accused and hence all are CRL. M.C. Nos. 163 & 329 OF 2005 3 liable and responsible. Ofcourse, I find that the complaint contains very serious allegations of cruelty against the 1st accused. But it is seen from the complaint that there is no averment that the complainant and A1 ever resided with the parents of the 1st accused at any point of time or for any period sufficient enough to have occasions to instigate the 1st accused to perpetrate the cruelty alleged.

3. It appears that there is no contribution on the part of the rest of the accused in the incidents narrated. It is evident from the detailed recitals in the complaint that accused 2 and 6 have been implicated just to make them undergo the ordeal of investigation and trial. In the circumstances, I find that the proceedings initiated against accused 2 to 6 amounts an abuse of process of court and hence proceedings in Crime No. 461/2004 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station against accused 2 to 6 liable to be quashed and is herewith quashed. The Crl. M.Cs are allowed.

K.R. UDAYABHANU, JUDGE.

RV CRL. M.C. Nos. 163 & 329 OF 2005 4


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.