IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3917 of 2009()
1. P.SASIDHARAN, KRISHNA KRIPA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. SRI. K.SOMASEKHARAN NAIR,
3. SRI. G.SUDARSHANAN,
4. SRI. S.A. PRADEEP, KARTHIKA BHAVAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :28/06/2010
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Crl.M.C.Nos.3917 & 4074 of 2009
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 28th day of June, 2010
ORDER
Petitioners in Crl.M.C No.4074 of 2009 are a father and a
son (Sudharshanan and Pradeep). They are accused Nos.1 and 3
in Crime No.427 of 2009 of Poojapura Police Station for offences
punishable under Sections 420, 506(ii) read with 34 IPC and
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 1969. The marriage
between the 2nd petitioner Pradeep and Preethi the daughter of
the de facto complainant was agreed to be solemnised on
30.10.2009. But the marriage did not take place and on
23.10.2009 the de facto complainant advertised in the
Mathrubhumi daily that the marriage which was fixed to be held
on 30.10.2009 was postponed. Thereafter, the de facto
complainant lodged Annexure C complaint before the Poojappura
Police alleging the aforesaid offences and the Police registered
the aforesaid crime. After investigation, the Police filed the final
report before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Thiruvananthapuram who took cognizance of the offences and
has registered the case as C.C.No.86/2010. The prayer in
Crl. M.C. Nos.3917 & 4074 / 2009
2
Crl.M.C.No.4074/2009 is to quash Annexure C F.I.R. The
prayer in Crl.M.C.No.3917/2009 filed by one Sasidharan (A2)
who is the uncle of one Pradeep (A3) is to quash Annexure C
F.I.R.
2. The ground put forward for quashing the F.I.R is that on
21.10.2009 there was an agreement executed between the two
fathers as well as the prospective groom whereby the groom’s
side had withdrawn from the marriage and had returned the
photographs, horoscope, a C.D. containing the marriage fixing
ceremony, a sample blouse of Preethi etc.
3. The petitioners would have it that when the marriage
was agreed to be cancelled as per Annexure A agreement to
which both parties affixed their signatures, there was no
question of any cheating and therefore the subsequent complaint
filed by the girl’s father and the crime registered were all
unsustainable.
4. The learned counsel for the de facto complainant would
dispute the agreement and would say that the signatures were
obtained under duress and that every word stated in the
complaint is true. It is a disputed question of fact.
Crl. M.C. Nos.3917 & 4074 / 2009
3
5. It is too early for this Court sitting in the jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C to come to a conclusion either way
regarding the legality or otherwise of Annexure A agreement.
The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences.
The remedy of the petitioners is to seek for a discharge if
grounds to do so exist.
Accordingly, without prejudice to the right of the
petitioners to plead for discharge before the Magistrate these
Crl.M.Cs are dismissed. In case the petitioners file an
application for personal exemption before the Magistrate for
considering their contention of discharge, the learned
Magistrate shall allow the same. The learned Magistrate shall
not insist upon the personal appearance of the petitioner before
the court below for the disposal of the discharge petition.
Dated this the 28th day of June, 2010.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
sj