Kerala High Court
Jackson M George vs The State Of Kerala on 28 July, 2025
2025:KER:54920
Crl.M.C.Nos.7408/2023 &2698/2024
-:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 6TH SRAVANA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 7408 OF 2023
CRIME NO.0366/2017 OF VENMANI POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA
IN CC NO.3013 OF 2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS -I, CHENGANNUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3
JIMSON A. GEORGE,​
AGED 35 YEARS​
S/O. GEORGE S.C, MONI VILLA,
CHUNAKKARA, MAVELIKKARA,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
PIN - 690534
BY ADV SMT.SUJA PADNABAN PILLAI
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,​
REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
VENMANI POLICE STATION,
THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI,
PIN - 682031
2 SHERIN P. RAJU,​
AGED 32 YEARS​
D/O JOHN RAJU,
SHIJU BHAVAN,
PATTANKADAVU,
CHERIYANADU,
CHENGNNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
PIN - 689511
2025:KER:54920
Crl.M.C.Nos.7408/2023 &2698/2024
-:2:-
BY ADVS. SRI.RAYJITH MARK FOR R2​
SHRI.MANU KRISHNA S.K.
SMT PUSHPALATHA M.K., SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.07.2025, ALONG WITH CRL.MC.2698/2024, THE COURT ON
28.07.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:54920
Crl.M.C.Nos.7408/2023 &2698/2024
-:3:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 6TH SRAVANA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 2698 OF 2024
CRIME NO.366/2017 OF VENMANI POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA
IN CC NO.3013 OF 2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS -I, CHENGANNUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:
JACKSON M GEORGE,​
AGED 36 YEARS​
S/O GEORGE S.C,
MONI VILLA, CHUNAKKARA,
MAVELIKKARA,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT -,
PIN - 690534
BY ADVS.SMT.SUJA PADNABAN PILLAI​
SHRI.G.RAJAN POTAYIL
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA​
REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
VENMONI POLICE STATION,
THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI -,
PIN - 682031
2 SHERIN P. RAJU,​
AGED 33 YEARS​
D/O JOHN RAJU,
SHIJU BHAVAN,
PATTANKADAVU,
CHERIYANADU,
CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
PIN - 689511
2025:KER:54920
Crl.M.C.Nos.7408/2023 &2698/2024
-:4:-
BY ADV SRI.RAYJITH MARK FOR R2
SMT PUSHPALATHA M.K., SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.07.2025, ALONG WITH CRL.MC.7408/2023, THE COURT ON
28.07.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:54920
Crl.M.C.Nos.7408/2023 &2698/2024
-:5:-
COMMON ORDER
​
Both these petitions are filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the
proceedings in C.C No.3013/2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-I, Chengannur, which arose out of Crime No.366/2017
of Venmani Police Station. The petitioner in Crl.M.C No.2698/2024 is the
first accused and the petitioner in Crl.M.C No.7408/2023 is the third
accused in that case. The offences alleged against them are under
Sections 141, 147, 447 and 498A I.P.C.
2.​ The case was registered by the Venmani Police on
13.03.2017 as per the directions of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court-I, Chengannur under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, in a complaint
preferred by the de facto complainant/2nd respondent. The allegation in
the said complaint was that the first accused, who married the de facto
complainant on 27.08.2012, had been subjecting the de facto
complainant to matrimonial cruelty, with the assistance of the second
accused-his father, the third accused-his brother, and the 4th and 5th
accused, who are his grandmother and cousin respectively, demanding
more dowry. It is alleged that, in the month of November, 2014, and on
30.11.2016, the accused had physically tortured the de facto
2025:KER:54920
Crl.M.C.Nos.7408/2023 &2698/2024
-:6:-
complainant at their residence. Thereafter, on 16.12.2016, the accused
are alleged to have criminally trespassed into the parental home of the
de facto complainant and subjected her to physical torture. In addition
to that, the second accused is alleged to have obtained an amount of
Rs.20,00,000/- from the de facto complainant. The first accused is
alleged to have obtained 100 sovereigns of gold belonging to the de
facto complainant. Thus the accused are alleged to have committed the
aforesaid offences.
3.​ In the present petitions, the petitioners would contend that
they are totally innocent, and that they have been falsely implicated in
this case. According to the petitioners, the inconsistent and
contradictory versions in the complaint filed by the de facto complainant,
itself reveal the falsity of the allegations levelled against them.
4.​ Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned
counsel for the de facto complainant/second respondent, and the learned
Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
5.​ It has been stated by the de facto complainant in paragraph
No.4 of the complaint preferred by her before the learned Magistrate
that, in the month of November 2014, when the de facto complainant
came to the house of the accused, the accused jointly resorted to
2025:KER:54920
Crl.M.C.Nos.7408/2023 &2698/2024
-:7:-
physical torture upon her. Thereafter, as per the averments in the same
paragraph of the complaint, the de facto complainant preferred a
complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mavelikkara in
the year 2015, which was amicably settled in mediation. However, the
accused are alleged to have physically assaulted her when she came to
their residence on 30.11.2016 to reside there, in accordance with the
decisions taken in the mediation. It is not stated by the de facto
complainant in the complaint as to what was the state of affairs after the
settlement of issues in mediation in 2015, and before 30.11.2016 when
she is said to have gone to the house of the accused for residing there in
accordance with the understanding arrived in the mediation. In
paragraph No.5 of the complaint, it is stated that the first accused
obtained 100 sovereigns of gold and the second accused obtained
Rs.20,00,000/- from the de facto complainant in the year 2016 for the
commencement of a company by the first accused. However, it is not
made clear as to whether it was before 30.11.2016 or after 30.11.2016,
when the accused are alleged to have physically assaulted her when she
came to reside at their house in accordance with the decisions in
mediation.
2025:KER:54920
Crl.M.C.Nos.7408/2023 &2698/2024
-:8:-
6.​ The copy of a receipt executed in stamp paper worth
Rs.100/- by the de facto complainant on 18.08.2015 is produced by the
petitioners as Annexure-A6 in Crl.M.C No.2698/2024 and Annexure-A8 in
Crl.M.C No.7408/2023. As per the contents of the aforesaid receipt, the
de facto complainant had acknowledged the receipt of 572 grams of gold
ornaments, which are said to be belonging to the de facto complainant
and her child, from the first accused. It is further stated in that receipt
that the aforesaid gold ornaments are accepted by her in accordance
with the terms and conditions of the mediation in M.C.No.74/2015 on the
files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mavelikkara. Thus it is
revealed from the above receipt that the de facto complainant had
received back 572 grams of gold ornaments from the first accused on
18.08.2015 in accordance with the terms of agreement of the mediation
conducted in M.C No.74/2015. It is not made clear in the complaint
preferred by the de facto complainant before the learned Magistrate on
08.03.2017 as to how she happened to give back 100 sovereigns of gold
to the father of the first accused (second accused) in the year 2016,
when the total quantity of gold which she had been keeping as per the
aforesaid receipt was only 572 grams which was equivalent to 71.5
sovereigns. So also, it appears to be strange and suspicious that the de
2025:KER:54920
Crl.M.C.Nos.7408/2023 &2698/2024
-:9:-
facto complainant volunteered to hand over an amount of Rs.20 lakhs
and 100 sovereigns of gold to the first accused and his father in the year
2016 itself after having been subjected to the physical assault on
30.11.2016 at the house of the accused. All the above inconsistencies
would give rise to serious doubt about the genuineness of the complaint
preferred by the de facto complainant. It is in this context that the
failure of the de facto complainant to abide by the requirements of
Section 154(1) and (3) Cr.P.C in the filing of complaint, assumes
significance.
7.​ It is pertinent to note that, nowhere in the complaint which
the de facto complainant had filed before the learned Magistrate, it has
been stated that she had approached the officer-in-charge of the Police
Station concerned and given information regarding the commission of
the crime alleged to have been committed by the accused. Nor had the
de facto complainant got a case that there was refusal on the part of the
officer-in-charge of the Police Station to record the information given by
her and hence she had approached the Superintendent of Police
concerned. Thus, it is apparent that the de facto complainant has not
availed the remedies available to her as per Sections 154(1) and 154(3)
Cr.PC. There is also nothing to show that the de facto complainant had
2025:KER:54920
Crl.M.C.Nos.7408/2023 &2698/2024
-:10:-
filed an affidavit before the learned Magistrate narrating the incidents as
well as the efforts made by her by approaching the officer-in-charge of
the Police Station and the Superintendent of Police to get the crime
registered. Thus, it has to be stated that the guidelines laid down by the
Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. [(2015) 6 SCC
287] and Babu Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka [(2022)5 SCC
639] are not followed in the case on hand. In Priyanka Srivastava
(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows in paragraph Nos.30
& 31 of the aforesaid judgment.
“30. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where
Section 156(3) CrPC applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly
sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the
Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate
would be well advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity
of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible.
We are compelled to say so as such kind of applications are being filed in
a routine manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever only to
harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more disturbing and
alarming when one tries to pick up people who are passing orders under
a statutory provision which can be challenged under the framework of
the said Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But it
cannot be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as if
somebody is determined to settle the scores.
31. We have already indicated that there has to be prior applications
under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section
2025:KER:54920
Crl.M.C.Nos.7408/2023 &2698/2024
-:11:-156(3). Both the aspects should be clearly spelt out in the application
and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. The warrant for
giving a direction that an application under Section 156(3) be supported
by an affidavit is so that the person making the application should be
conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is made. It is
because once an affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable for
prosecution in accordance with law. This will deter him to casually invoke
the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3). That apart, we
have already stated that the veracity of the same can also be verified by
the learned Magistrate, regard being had to the nature of allegations of
the case. We are compelled to say so as a number of cases pertaining to
fiscal sphere, matrimonial dispute/family disputes, commercial offences,
medical negligence cases, corruption cases and the cases where there is
abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, as are illustrated
in Lalita Kumari [(2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] are being
filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the delay
in lodging of the FIR.”
8.​ Following the law laid down in Priyanka Srivastava, Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held in Babu Venkatesh (supra) as follows:
“23. After analysing the law as to how the power under Section 156(3)CrPC
has to be exercised, this Court in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P.
[Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., (2015) 6 SCC 287 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ)
294 : (2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 153] has observed thus : (SCC p. 306, paras
30-31)“30. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country
where Section 156(3)CrPC applications are to be supported by an
affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of
the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate
2025:KER:54920
Crl.M.C.Nos.7408/2023 &2698/2024
-:12:-case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the
truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations. This
affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We are
compelled to say so as such kind of applications are being filed in
a routine manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever
only to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more
disturbing and alarming when one tries to pick up people who are
passing orders under a statutory provision which can be
challenged under the framework of the said Act or under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. But it cannot be done to take
undue advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined
to settle the scores.
31. We have already indicated that there has to be prior
applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a
petition under Section 156(3). Both the aspects should be clearly
spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect
shall be filed. The warrant for giving a direction that an application
under Section 156(3) be supported by an affidavit is so that the
person making the application should be conscious and also
endeavour to see that no false affidavit is made. It is because
once an affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable for
prosecution in accordance with law. This will deter him to casually
invoke the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3). That
apart, we have already stated that the veracity of the same can
also be verified by the learned Magistrate, regard being had to the
nature of allegations of the case. We are compelled to say so as a
number of cases pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial
dispute/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence
cases, corruption cases and the cases where there is abnormal
delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, as are illustrated in
2025:KER:54920
Crl.M.C.Nos.7408/2023 &2698/2024
-:13:-Lalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 :
(2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] are being filed. That apart, the learned
Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR.”
24. This Court has clearly held that, a stage has come where
applications under Section 156(3)CrPC are to be supported by an affidavit
duly sworn by the complainant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction
of the Magistrate.
25. This Court further held that, in an appropriate case, the learned
Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also verify the
veracity of the allegations. The Court has noted that, applications under
Section 156(3)CrPC are filed in a routine manner without taking any
responsibility only to harass certain persons.
26. This Court has further held that, prior to the filing of a petition
under Section 156(3)CrPC, there have to be applications under Sections
154(1) and 154(3)CrPC. This Court emphasises the necessity to file an
affidavit so that the persons making the application should be conscious
and not make false affidavit. With such a requirement, the persons would
be deterred from causally invoking authority of the Magistrate, under
Section 156(3)CrPC. Inasmuch as if the affidavit is found to be false, the
person would be liable for prosecution in accordance with law.”
9.​ The failure on the part of the de facto complainant to avail the
remedies provided under Sections 154(1) & 154(3) Cr.PC and to file the
affidavit before the learned Magistrate in accordance with the guidelines
of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions, cannot be eschewed
as a trivial matter in view of the serious incompatibilities in the
contentions raised in that complaint. Going by the essence of the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava and Babu
2025:KER:54920
Crl.M.C.Nos.7408/2023 &2698/2024
-:14:-
Venkatesh (supra), the prosecution launched against the accused in
C.C.No.3013/2017 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I,
Chengannur, cannot survive. Accordingly, I find that the prayers of the
petitioners in these petitions to quash the proceedings in that case, are to
be allowed.
In the result, both these petitions stand allowed. The proceedings
against all accused in C.C No.3013/2017 on the files of the Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court-I, Chengannur, which arose out of Crime
No.366/2017 of Venmani Police Station, are hereby quashed.
​​ ​ ​ ​ (sd/-)
G. GIRISH, JUDGE
jsr/DST
2025:KER:54920
Crl.M.C.Nos.7408/2023 &2698/2024
-:15:-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7408/2023
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE - A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R NO. 0366/2017 OF
VENMANI POLICE STATION DATED 13.03.2017
ANNEXURE - A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE
FINAL REPORT RECEIVED ON 13.03.2017 ON THE
FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
COURT, CHENGANNUR IN CC NO.3013/2017
ANNEXURE-A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
PASSPORT NO. R6345275 ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT
OF INDIA DATED 24.07.2008
ANNEXURE - A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE
ORDER DATED 05.07.2023 IN CMP NO. 2128/2023
IN CC NO. 3013/2017 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL 1ST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, CHENGANNUR
ANNEXURE - A5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE
DATED 22-07-2023
ANNEXURE - A6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT
FILED FILED UNDER SECTION 190(A) AND 200 OF
CR.P.C, JFMC-I, CHENGANNUR
ANNEXURE - A7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF
ORDER DATED 10.03.2023 IN OP (DIVORCE) NO.
1516/2022 OF THE FAMILY COURT, MAVELIKKARA
ANNEXURE - A8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED
18/08/2015
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE R2(1) A PHOTOCOPY OF THE PAPER CUTTING SHOWING
THE AGED OF THE 4TH ACCUSED AS 80 AT THE
TIME OF DEATH IN 2021.
2025:KER:54920
Crl.M.C.Nos.7408/2023 &2698/2024
-:16:-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2698/2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE-A 1 TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R NO. 0366/2017 OF
VENMONI POLICE STATION DATED 13.03.2017
ANNEXURE-A 2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE
FINAL REPORT DATED 17.06.2017 ON THE FILE
OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,
CHENGANNUR IN CC NO.3013/2017
ANNEXURE -A3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED
22.07.2023 ISSUED FROM BHARANIKAVU GRAMA
PANCHAYATH
ANNEXURE -A4 TRUE COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT DATED
08.03.2017 FILED UNDER SECTION 190(A) AND
200 OF CR.P.C, JFMC-I, CHENGANNUR
ANNEXURE -A5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.03.2023 IN
OP (DIVORCE) NO. 1516/2022 OF THE FAMILY
COURT, MAVELIKKARA
ANNEXURE-A 6 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT RECEIPT DATED
18.08.2015 IN M.C NO. 74/2015, JFMC-I,
MAVELIKKARA