High Court allowed quashing of criminal prosecution under POCSO Act. Court found the offence arose from misapprehension and parties settled amicably. Prosecution quashed under CrPC 482 as it would waste judicial time.
Prosecution against the petitioner in S.C No.1223/2015 before the Court of Sessions quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937
Crl.MC.No. 7278 of 2015 () ---------------------------
CRIME NO. 1263/2015 OF NEMOM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANDAPURAM
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
----------------------
SASANKAN AGED 44 YEARS S/O. SASIDHARAN, KAYALKARA VEEDU, KATTUKULAM VENNIYOOR DESOM, VENGOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
BY ADVS.SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY
SMT.BREJITHA UNNIKRISHNAN
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLICPROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA
2. RAHUL R KUMAR S/O. T RATHEESH KUMAR, NEMOM POLICE QUARTERS NO C-4 NEMOM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 020
3. T RATHEESH KUMAR S/O. THANKAPPAN, NEMOM POLICE QUARTERS NO C-4 NEMOM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 020
R2 & 3 BY ADV. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JUSTIN JACOB
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 7278 of 2015 () ---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------ANNEXURE A : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NUMBER 263/2015 OF NEMOM POLICE STATION ANNEXURE B : ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 17/10/2015 ANNEXURE C : TRUE COPY OF THE AADHAR CARD OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ANNEXURE D : ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 17/10/2015 ANNEXURE E : TRUE COPY OF THE AADHAR CARD OF THE 3RD RSPONDENT RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL ------------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
vdv
P.UBAID, J.
====================== Crl. M.C No.7278 of 2015
==========================
Dated this the 9th day of December, 2015
ORDER
A prosecution involving the offence punishable under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act is sought to be quashed on the ground of amicable settlement out of court. Though some other sections are also seen quoted, the allegations will some only under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The victim of offence is now aged 17 years. His father is a Police Officer in the Kerala State Police Department. The prosecution is now pending as S.C No.1223/2015 before the Court of Sessions, Thiruvananthapuram. The 2nd respondent herein is the victim of offence, and 3rd respondent is his father. Both have filed affidavit to the effect that the whole disputes stand settled amicably out of court, and that they have no grievance or complaint now. As required by the Court, the respondents appeared before me in person. On interacting with them, I find that complaint in this case in fact happened to be made on some misapprehension. The 3rd respondent who is still in police service stated before me on interaction that in fact there is no scope for a prosecution. The 3rd respondent affirmed before me that nobody has any grievance, and
2
Crl.M.C No.7278/2015
nothing serious, as stated in the complaint, had in fact happened. The 2nd respondent (victim) also stated before me on interaction that the whole issue now stands resolved. The 3rd respondent is a police officer. When he says that the crime happened to be registered on some misapprehension, and he or his son has no grievance or complaint, it can be accepted by the Court. In so many decisions the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even in cases involving non-compoundable offences where public interest is not involved, the High Court can quash the prosecution if the parties have come to settlement amicably out of court, and continuance of the prosecution will not serve any purpose other than wasting the precious time of the Court.
In the result, this petition is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioner in S.C No.1223/2015 before the Court of Sessions, Thiruvananthapuram will stand quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Sd/-
vdv
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution under Section 8 of the POCSO Act can be quashed on the ground of amicable settlement when parties agree no grievance exists.
Whether continued prosecution serves any purpose other than wasting court time in a settled case.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SASANKAN
BREJITHA UNNIKRISHNAN
THE STATE OF KERALA
RAHUL R KUMAR
T RATHEESH KUMAR
P.UBAID
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
