P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.

1. This is a proceedings instituted under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking orders quashing the Final Report in Crime No. 13 of 2019 of Mankara Police Station, now pending trial in C.C. No. 423 of 2019 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Palakkad.

2. Petitioners are the accused in the case registered for offences punishable under Sections 448, 341, 323, 324, 354B and 506(i) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 119(b) of the Kerala Police Act. The accusation against the accused in essence is that on 28.11.2018, at around 01.00 pm, the accused barged into the house of the de facto complainant while she was conversing with her friend named Arun and on fury thrashed Arun and when the de facto complainant retorted and intervened to ward off further blow on Arun, the accused assaulted both the de facto complainant and Arun with electric wires, wooden sticks and with hands and also stamped them. It is also alleged that thereupon, the accused forcibly took both the de facto complainant and Arun to the bed room of the de facto complainant and snapped them in their nudity and thereby outraged the modesty of the de facto complainant. It is also alleged that the second accused thereafter kept the de facto complainant under wrongful detention in his house for sometime and during the said period, the accused caused the de facto complainant to transfer a property owned by her to the name of her son under threat and coercion.

3. The accused 1 and 2 are the brothers of the husband of the de facto complainant and accused 3 and 4 are the close associates of accused 1 and 2. According to them, it is a false case instituted at the instance of one Shafeek with whom the de facto complainant was maintaining an extra marital affair. It is also the case of the accused that one night, the de facto complainant and Shafeek were caught red handed by the public who encircled the house of the de facto complainant and while trying to escape, Shafeek caused serious injuries to a few persons using a sword and the petitioners are witnesses to the said occurrence. According to them, it is to dissuade the petitioners from giving evidence in the case against Shafeek that this case is falsely instituted, and there was no such occurrence as alleged. To bring home the said point, it is alleged by the accused that there are glaring inconsistencies in the statements given by the de facto complainant as regards the occurrence and that though the alleged occurrence took place on 28.11.2018, the same was reported to the police only on 08.01.2019.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The First Information Report, the statement given by the de facto complainant to the police, the statement given later by the de facto complainant under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Magistrate as also the Final Report are part of the records. I have also perused the said documents meticulously. The accused do not have a case that the statements given by the de facto complainant to the police and also to the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not make out the offences alleged. The case of the accused, on the other hand, is only that it is a false and vexatious case instituted to dissuade the accused from giving evidence in the case against Shafeek. As noted, the accused are attempting to bring home the said point mainly on two grounds, viz., that there are glaring inconsistencies in the statements given by the de facto complainant as regards the occurrence and that though the alleged occurrence took place on 28.11.2018, the same was reported to the police only on 08.01.2019.

6. True, the court proceedings shall not be a weapon of harassment and if the court finds that the proceedings have been instituted to spite the other party on account of private and personal vengeance, the court has certainly the power to quash the proceedings. As noted, merely for the reason that the petitioners or some of them happened to be witnesses in an earlier case against one person with whom the de facto complainant was allegedly maintaining an extra marital relationship, it cannot be said that the case is false. I do not find any glaring inconsistencies as regards the material particulars in the statements given by the de facto complainant. The statements given by the de facto complainant itself offer a reasonable explanation for the delay. The question as to whether the case is false is a matter to be seen in a case of this nature at the time of trial. The power to quash the proceedings on the ground that the case is false and vexatious is one to be exercised in exceptional cases. This is certainly not an exceptional case where such power is to be exercised. The Criminal M.C., in the circumstances, is without merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

image