Allowed

Nikhil v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Jun 2011Crl.MC/1364/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner accused of abduction and attempted rape under Sections 366, 511, and 376 IPC. The court allowed the misc. case based on a settlement with the victim, who objected to the trial due to her fixed marriage and fear of marital disruption. The Public Prosecutor did not oppose the quashing.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.P.No.135 of 2010 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kottarakara are quashed.

Nikhil Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2011 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶4

Crl.MC.No. 1364 of 2011()

¶5

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

¶6

CP NO.135/2010 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, KOTTARAKARA CRIME NO.1043/2010 OF CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶8

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

¶9

NIKHIL, S/O.BABU RAJ, PRASANNA VILASAM, VELLALLOOR MURI, NAGAROOR VELLALLOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR

¶11

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶12

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

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-695001.

¶14

2. ANJU, D/O.RANI, SREEKRISHNA VILASAM, KOTTAPPURAM, KADAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691534.

¶15

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.MANU R2 ADV. SMT.C.A.SEENA

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

THOMAS P JOSEPH, J.

¶19

Crl.M.C.No.1364 of 2011

¶20

Dated this 09^th day of June, 2011

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Petitioner is accused in Crime No.1043 of 2010 of Chadayamangalam Police Station pending before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kottarakara as C.P.No.135 of 2010 for offences punishable under Secs.366 and 511 r/w Sec.376 of the Indian Penal Code. Case was registered on the information given by the second respondent. Petitioner wants to quash proceeding against him on the strength of a settlement reached with the second respondent. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶23

Annexure-A3 is the affidavit sworn by the second respondent. That affidavit is attested by the counsel appearing for second respondent. In that affidavit it is stated that the dispute is settled between herself and petitioner. It is also stated that marriage of second respondent with another person is fixed and pendancy of the criminal case might marr her life. In the circumstances, second respondent does not want to proceed with the criminal proceeding. She has no objection in allowing the criminal miscellaneous case and quashing proceeding against

¶24

Crl.M.C.No.1364 of 2011

¶25

-: 2 :-

¶26

petitioner.

¶27

Learned counsel for petitioner has assured me that petitioner is not involved in any other case. It is seen that second respondent is aged 20years. She states that her marriage is fixed with another person. The allegation is abduction and alleged attempt to commit rape. That dispute is personal to the petitioner and second respondent and is settled between the parties. Considering that and the future of the second respondent if she goes for trial, I am inclined to allow the request.

¶28

This criminal miscellaneous case is allowed. Proceeding against petitioner/accused in C.P.No.135 of 2010 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kottarakara (arising from the final report in Crime No.1043 of 2010 of Chadayamangalam Police Station) are quashed.

¶29

(THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE)

¶30

Sbna/-

Nikhil v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nikhil v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aji Somanath Vs the D.G.of Police

Harikrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Gayathri Nandakumar Vs State of Kerala

Parthipal M.P. Vs State of Kerala

Baiju Vs Latha

Ambika Vs State of Kerala