Allowed

Siby Mathew v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Sept 2015Crl.MC/5767/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala quashed criminal prosecution against accused Sibi Mathew in Additional Sessions Court, Kottayam, on ground of amicable settlement between accused and de facto complainant (mother of minor victim). Court found genuine settlement to avoid trauma to child and allowed quashing under Section 482 CrPC. Accused released and bail bond discharged.

What did the court decide?

Prosecution quashed under Section 482 CrPC; petitioner released from prosecution; bail bond discharged.

Siby Mathew Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/11TH BHADRA, 1937

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 5767 of 2015

¶6

IN SC 238/2015 OF THE ADDL. SESSIONS COURT I, KOTTAYAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

SIBY MATHEW, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.M.P.MATHEW, MULACKAL HOUSE, VAZHAPPALLY KIZHAKKU KARA, VAZHAPPALLY KIZHAKKU VILLAGE.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.T.P.PRADEEP

¶10

SRI.P.K.SATHEES KUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶13

2. SMITHA V., AGED 38 YEARS W/O.UNNIKRISHNAN, BODHI HOUSE, THOTTAPPADY JN. KUNNAMTHANAM, MALLAPPALLY - 689 585.

¶14

3. UNNIKRISHNAN,

¶15

S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR, BODHI HOUSE, THOTTAPPADY JN. KUNNAMTHANAM, MALLAPPALLY - 689 585.

¶16

R2,3 BY ADV. SRI.UNNI. K.K. (EZHUMATTOOR) R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SHEEBA M.T

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Crl.MC.No. 5767 of 2015

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶21

ANNEXURE A. CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN S.C.NO.238/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - I, KOTTAYAM.

¶22

ANNEXURE B. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶23

ANNEXURE C. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶24

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

P.UBAID, J. --------------------------------------Crl.M.C No.5767 of 2015 ---------------------------------------

¶30

Dated this the 2^nd day of September, 2015

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

The petitioner herein is the sole accused in S.C No.238/2015 of the Additional Sessions Court I, Kottayam. He seeks orders quashing the prosecution on the ground of amicable settlement of the whole dispute between him and the de facto complainant. Crime in this case was registered under Sections 377 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 11(1) r/w 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act on the complaint of one Smitha who is the 2^nd respondent in this proceeding brought under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She has filed affidavit to the effect that she has settled the whole dispute with the accused, and she has no grievance or complaint now. The victim of offence is the minor son of the complainant, aged 14 years.

¶33

The complainant's affidavit shows that she and her husband decided to settle the issue in the best interest of the child. Though the offence of sexual harassment is revealed by

¶34

¶35

Crl.M.C No.5767 of 2015

¶36

the statement given by the victim, it does not in fact reveal the offence under Section 377 IPC against the child. The complainant and her husband apprehend that if the child is exposed to a trial process in court, it will cause embarrassment to him and it may even affect his studies. The complainant appeared before me with the victim and explained why the matter stands settled. I am well satisfied, on interacting with the complainant and the child, that the complainant and her husband decided to settle the issue in the best interest of child, and that if the child is exposed to a trial process, it will definitely affect his studies.

¶37

In so many decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even in cases involving non-compoundable offences, the High Court can quash the prosecution in pending proceedings, if the parties have really settled the whole dispute amicably out of court, and continuance of prosecution will not serve any purpose in such a circumstance of amicable settlement. Here, I find a real and genuine case of settlement between the parties. This is not a case involving any public interest or public issue. The parties have come to terms amicably on the intervention of persons acceptable to both sides. In such

¶38

¶39

Crl.M.C No.5767 of 2015

¶40

a situation, continuance of the prosecution will not serve any purpose other than wasting the precious time of the court. No doubt, nobody will support the prosecution in such a situation, if the case goes to trial.

¶41

In the result, this petition is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioner herein in S.C No.238/2015 of the Additional Sessions Court I, Kottayam will stand quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the petitioner will stand released from prosecution, and the bail bond, if any, executed by him will stand discharged.

¶42

P.UBAID JUDGE

¶43

Siby Mathew v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siby Mathew 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anwar Vs Njma

Ansar Vs State of Kerala

Riyas Babu Vs State of Kerala

Jalaja Mani Vs Sreeja M.S

Dr. Jacob Thomas Vs State of Kerala

S.N.Sharma Vs State of Kerala