Allowed

Arun.a.S @ Subash v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Sept 2014Crl.MC/5270/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal miscellaneous case petition to quash criminal proceedings for abduction and rape under Section 366(A) and 376 IPC. The court held that since the parties had settled the matter amicably and married, continuation of proceedings was an abuse of process and served no purpose.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of all further proceedings in C.P.No. 102/2011 pending against the petitioners in the FIR.

Arun.a.S @ Subash Vs State of Kerala — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/28TH BHADRA, 1936

¶5

CRL.MC.NO. 5270 OF 2014

¶6

CP.NO. 102/2011 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, NEYYATTINKARA CRIME NO. 920/2010 OF NEYYATTINKARA POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. ARUN.A.S @ SUBASH, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.ARAVINDAKSHAN, SUDHABHAVAN, POTTAYIL IRUMBIL DESOM, NEYYATTINKARA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2. SUDHA, AGED 49 YEARS D/O.ARUNDHATHI, SUDHA BHAVAN, POTTAYIL IRUMBIL DESOM, NEYYATTINKARA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

3. SARANYA, AGED 24 YEARS, D/O.KUMARI, SUDHA BHAVAN, POTTAYIL IRUMBIL DESOM, NEYYATTINKARA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/VICTIM/STATE:

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. (CRIME NO.920/2010 OF NEYYATTINKARA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT).

¶14

2. JINCY J.S., AGED 20 YEARS, D/O.SUMA, PUSHPALAYAM, THAVARAVILA IRUMBIL, ARUVIPURAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶15

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA R2 BY ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

CRL.MC.NO. 5270 OF 2014

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶21

ANNEXURE-I: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.920/2010 OF NEYYATTINKARA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE-II: AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT/VICTIM DATED 11.3.2014. ANNEXURE-III: CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE DATED 31.12.2013 ISSUED BY PERUMKADAVILA GRAMA PANCHAYATH.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

V.K.MOHANAN, J

===========================

¶28

Crl.M.C No.5270 of 2014

¶29

============================

¶30

Dated this the 19^th day of September, 2014

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The above petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') at the instance of the petitioners, who are accused in C.P.No.102/2011 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Neyyattinkara, which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No.920/2010 of Neyyattinkara Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 366(A) and 376 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash all proceedings in C.P No.102/2011 pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Neyyattinkara as against the petitioners as the matter is settled out of court.

¶33

The allegation in the above case is that 1^st accused promised the 2^nd respondent to marry and thereby accused 2 and 3 helped the 1^st accused to remove the 2^nd respondent from the lawful custody of her parents and 1^st accused committed sexual intercourse with the 2^nd respondent and thereby the accused have committed the aforesaid offences and now, the

¶34

Crl.M.C No.5270 of 2014

¶35

¶36

case of the petitioners is that the matter is settled out of court.

¶37

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the 2^nd respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶38

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that during the pendency of the above case, the matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute which is the subject matter of the above case. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above case is abuse of process of law and proceedings.

¶39

The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent, who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent, submitted that the above respondent, who is the de facto complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners and she has no grievance against them.

¶40

The learned counsel for the petitioners and the 2^nd respondent submitted that pursuant to the settlement arrived between the first accused and 2^nd respondent, they have married as per the customary rites on 31.12.2013 and now they are residing together and a child is born in the said wedlock. Annexure-III is the Marriage Certificate dated 31.12.2013 issued by the Perumkadavila Grama Panchayat. Thus, it can be seen that on the basis of the

¶41

Crl.M.C No.5270 of 2014

¶42

¶43

settlement arrived, 1^st petitioner as well as the contesting respondent have married each other and now they are living together as husband and wife and leading a peaceful family life and a child has already born in the wedlock. If that be so, it is only just and proper to allow the prayer in this Crl.M.C otherwise the continuation of the criminal proceedings will adversely affect their smooth family life and the pending criminal proceedings certainly would amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, it is just and proper to allow this Crl.M.C.

¶44

I have carefully considered the above submissions of the respective counsel. I have verified the documents and materials produced along with the above petition. In the given facts and circumstances of the case and especially in the light of the settlement arrived between the parties to the dispute, the learned Public Prosecutor has also no objection in allowing the above petition.

¶45

Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, it can be seen that the offences involved in the above case are under Sections 366(A) and 376 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, which are more or less personal in nature and no public interest is involved. It is pertinent to note that though such offences are involved, the real parties to the dispute approached this Court after having amicably settled the matter. From the submission made by the

¶46

Crl.M.C No.5270 of 2014

¶47

¶48

counsel for the 2^nd respondent, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioners/accused in the light of the settlement arrived by them. In this juncture, it is relevant to note the decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012(4)

¶49

KLT 108(SC)], in which case, the Supreme Court has held as follows:-

¶50

“57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under S.320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz;(i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R. may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed..

¶51

It is further held as follows:-

¶52

“...... ... But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial,mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim........”

¶53

Crl.M.C No.5270 of 2014

¶54

¶55

According to me, in the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and particularly in view of the settlement arrived in the present case, the dictum laid in the above decision is applicable in the present case. Thus, I am of the view that as the parties to the dispute settled the issues amicably, it is the duty of this Court to promote and encourage such settlement, instead of compelling the parties to go on with the dispute. It is pertinent to note that since the matter is settled out of court, in the event of proceeding with the trial, there would not have any fruitful prosecution resulting the conviction of the accused, rather the net result would be sheer waste of judicial time and abuse of process of the court and proceedings. Thus, according to me, following the decisions cited supra, this Criminal M.C. can be allowed granting the relief as sought for.

¶56

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.P.No. 102/2011 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Neyyattinkara in Crime No.920/2010 of Neyyattinkara Police Station.

¶57

Sd/- V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE

¶58

vdv

¶59

//True Copy// P.A to Judge

Arun.a.S @ Subash v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun.a.S @ Subash 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs.Ashalatha.Y.K Vs State of Kerala

Suprabashg C.G Vs State of Kerala

Sameer Vs State of Kerala

Jancy Benny Vs State of Kerala

Christin P Mathai Vs State of Kerala

Hariprasad K @ Hareesh Vs Nazima Sheikh