Allowed

Sreekanth R v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Jun 2018Crl.MC/2867/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that since the parties involved in a kidnapping charge case have intermarried and are living happily, the dispute is personal without grave offences. Under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the criminal proceedings for kidnapping and abduction were quashed to settle the personal dispute.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C. No. 2867 of 2018 allowed; proceedings in S.C. No. 845/2012 and threatened CMCs quashed.

Sreekanth R Vs the State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2867 of 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 845/2012 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT 1, SPECIAL COURT POCSO, ALAPPUZHA

¶7

CRIME NO. 727/2011 OF KAREELAKULANGARA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED

¶9

SREEKANTH R., AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN NAIR, RESIDING AT VETTATHU KOICKAL HOUSE, MATTOM NORTH, THATTARAMBALAM P.O., MAVELIKARA.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE, DE FACTO COMPLAINANT & VICTIM:

¶12

1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶13

2. BEENA MAHEEN AGED 42 YEARS, W/O.MAHEEN KUNJU, NADAKAVIL KIZHAKETHIL HOUSE, CHINGOLI P.O., KARTHIKAPALLY-690 532.

¶14

3. RIYA MAHEEN, AGED 23 YEARS, W/O.SREEKANTH R., RESIDING AT NADAKKAVIL KIZHAKKATHIL, CHAINGOLI P.O., KARTHIKAPPALLY 690 532.

¶15

R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.NAVEEN RADHAKRISHNAN R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R.RANJITH

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Crl.MC.No. 2867 of 2018

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

¶20

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT/CHARGE IN CRIME NO.727/2011 OF KAREELAKULANGARA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE DATED 08.08.2012.

¶21

ANNEXURE A3 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶22

ANNEXURE A4 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶23

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P. A. TO JUDGE

Pn 23/06

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

Crl. M. C. No. 2867 of 2018 -------------------------------------------

¶29

Dated this the 21^st day of June, 2018

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.727/2011 of Kareelakulangara Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 34 of IPC. The crux of the prosecution allegation is that the petitioner herein kidnapped the 3^rd respondent, who is the daughter of the 2^nd respondent. The de facto complainant laid a complaint, pursuant to which, crime was registered. After investigation final report was laid and the matter is now pending as S.C.No.845/2012 of Additional Sessions Court 1, Special Court POCSO, Alappuzha.

¶32

Crl.M.C. is laid on a premise that the petitioner herein was in love with the 3^rd respondent and that the 3^rd respondent voluntarily eloped with him. It was stated that they have since married. It is further stated that the 3^rd respondent had attained the age of majority. Learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 admitted the settlement and acknowledged the due execution of Annexures A3 and A4 affidavits.

¶33

The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that a fresh statement of the de facto complainant has

¶34

¶35

Crl. M. C. No. 2867 of 2018

¶36

been recorded, wherein she has acknowledged the marriage. It is evident by Annexure A2, copy of the certificate of marriage dated 08.08.2012.

¶37

Having considered the fact that the parties have married and are living together happily, I am inclined to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceedings since the dispute essentially appears to be a personal dispute without the involvement of any grevious offences under the POCSO Act.

¶38

Accordingly, Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings in S.C.No.845/2012 of Additional Sessions Court 1, Special Court POCSO, Alappuzha stand quashed.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.

¶41

Pn 23/06

Sreekanth R v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreekanth R v. the 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

Ummer Shafi Vs the State of Kerala

Midhun Nair Vs State of Kerala

Parameswaran Pillai Sreekumar Vs State of Kerala

Vipin Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Pradeep Vs State of Kerala

Sherine Vs State of Kerala