Allowed

Jiju v. Lima.B

Kerala HC10 Aug 2017Crl.MC/4150/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition and quashed the FIR. The court held that no material indicated the marriage occurred while the respondent was a minor, thus the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act did not attract. Consequently, quashing proceedings secured the ends of justice under Section 482 Cr.P.C. regarding alleged offences of rape and POCSO.

What did the court decide?

The First Information Report and further proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No. 694/2016 were quashed.

Jiju Vs Lima.B — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/19TH SRAVANA, 1939

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 4150 of 2017 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 694/20176 OF NENMARA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 5:

¶8

1. JIJU, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O RAJU, POOVATHINGAL, VADAKKEKKARA, KIZHAKKENCHERRY, NENMARA, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD.

¶9

2. A.K. BABU, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O ACHUTHAN, KOOVAKKATTIL HOUSE, KUNNUKAD, VEEZHLY, KAIRADY, NENMARA, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD.

¶10

3. LEELA, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O A.K. BABU, KOOVAKKATTIL HOUSE, KUNNUKAD, VEEZHLY, KAIRADY, NENMARA, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD.

¶11

4. RAJU @ RAJAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O KRISHNAN, POOVATHINGAL, VADAKKEKKARA, KIZHAKKENCHERRY, NENMARA, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD.

¶12

5. SYAMALA AGED 47 YEARS, W/O RAJAN, POOVATHINGAL, VADAKKEKKARA, KIZHAKKENCHERRY, NENMARA, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)

¶14

RESPONDENT(S)/CW1 AND STATE :

¶15

1. LIMA.B

¶16

AGED 18 YEARS, D/O BABU, KUVAKKAD HOUSE, VEEZHILY, KAIRADY POST. CHITTUR, PALAKKAD-678510.

¶17

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682031.

¶18

R1 BY ADV. SRI.UNNI SEBASTIAN KAPPEN R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Crl.MC.No. 4150 of 2017 ()

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶23

ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.694/2016 OF NENMARA POLICE STATION OF PALAKKAD DISTRICT ALONG WITH CHILD MARRIAGE INFORMATION REPORT. ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE DATED 25.04.2017. ANNEXURE C THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN EVIDENCING THE AFORESAID FACTUM OF SETTLEMENT.

¶24

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

STK

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶29

-------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.4150 of 2017

¶30

Dated this the 10^th day of August, 2017

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

The petitioners are accused in Crime No.694/2016 of Nenmara Police Station registered for the offences under Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶33

Heard.

¶34

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the parties and the learned Public Prosecutor that the first petitioner married the first respondent on 19.04.2017 in accordance with their customary rites. The first respondent filed affidavit stating that she married the first petitioner on 19.04.2017 and ever since they have been residing together as husband and wife under one roof. Even though, there is allegation regarding the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act,

¶35

Crl.M.C. No.4150 of 2017

¶36

-: 2 :-

¶37

no material is available before the court to indicate that the marriage between the first petitioner and the first respondent was solemnized at a time when the first respondent was a minor. Therefore, the offences under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 are not attracted in this case. On the other hand, Annexure-B copy of the certificate of marriage would show that the marriage between the first petitioner and the first respondent was solemnized on 19.04.2017, in accordance with the customary rites at the residence of the bride.

¶38

Since the first petitioner had married the first respondent, I am of the view that quashing the said offences would secure the ends of justice. For the said reason, I am inclined to quash the FIR and further proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.694/2016 of Nenmara Police Station, in exercise of the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to meet the ends of justice and

¶39

Crl.M.C. No.4150 of 2017

¶40

-: 3 :-

¶41

accordingly, I order so.

¶42

In the result, this Crl.M.C. stands allowed.

¶43

Sd/- B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶44

STK

¶45

//TRUE COPY// //P.A. TO JUDGE//

Jiju v. Lima.B

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jiju v. Lima.B

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

Stanly Joseph Vs the State of Kerala

Shaji.a Vs State of Kerala

Amsulal P.B Vs State

Afsath Vs State of Kerala

Ratheesh Vs State of Kerala

Aboobacker Vs State of Kerala