Dismissed

Anilkumar v. State of Kerala and Another

Kerala HC11 Aug 2009Crl.MC/2365/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging the trial in a case involving offences under Sections 366 and 376 IPC. Despite an alleged settlement, the court refused to quash the proceedings given the gravity of the offence, relying on Supreme Court precedent, but directed the Sessions Judge to dispose of the case expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings refused; direction to Sessions Judge for expeditious disposal of the case granted.

Anilkumar Vs State of Kerala and Another — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2009 / 20TH SRAVANA 1931

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2365 of 2009()

¶6

-----------------------------------S.C. NO.199/2009 OF FAST TRCK COURT NO.II, KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶8

---------------------------------

¶9

ANILKUMAR, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.NEELAKANDAN PILLAI, GOKULAM HOUSE, CHAVARA MURY, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. MR.M.L.SURESH KUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT/STATE

¶12

------------------------------

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

2. VINEETHA, AGED 24 YEARS, D/O.RADHAMANI, KURUVELIKATTIL HOUSE, CHAVARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶15

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.AMJAD ALI.

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

rs.

¶18

M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.

¶19

Crl.M.C.No.2365 of 2009

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petitioner is the accused in S.C.No.199/2009 on

¶22

the file of Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track-

¶23

II), Kollam. Offences alleged are under Sections 366, 376 and 420 of Indian Penal Code. This

¶24

petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that there was a settlement of the disputes with the second respondent prosecutrix and in such circumstances, in the interest of justice, the case is to be quashed. Second respondent filed an affidavit to the effect that there was a settlement of all the disputes between the petitioner and second respondent.

¶25

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

¶26

Though learned counsel appearing for the

¶27

petitioner submitted that there was a settlement of

¶28

CRMC 2365/09 2

¶29

the disputes with the second respondent, whose marriage has been fixed with another person, the case, involving a serious offence against the prosecturix under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, cannot be allowed to be quashed. As held by the Apex Court in Manoj Sharma v. State (2008 (4) KLT 417), on the ground of settlement all offences cannot be quashed. Section 376 of Indian Penal Code is, definitely, one among the offences, which cannot be allowed to be quashed by arriving at a settlement with the prosecutrix, as it would give a wrong message to the society. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner then submitted that there may be a direction to the Sessions Judge to dispose the case expeditiously. Sessions Judge is directed to dispose the case expeditiously.

¶30

Petition is disposed.

¶31

11^th August, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv

Anilkumar v. State of Kerala and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anilkumar v. State of Kerala and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sebastian Vs State of Kerala

Rahul Vs State of Kerala and Another

A.Abdul Vaheed Vs State of Kerala & Anr.

Selvan Vs Vijayakumar and Another

G.Mohana Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Christeen Vs State of Kerala and Another