Allowed

Sujesh.v v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Jul 2018Crl.MC/3632/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a quashing petition by an accused in a rape case and a crime under the SC/ST Act. The court held that subsequent marriage and a declaration of setttlement negated the allegation of false promise to marry, rendering the conviction unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

The Cr.M.C. was allowed and further proceedings in the trial court against the petitioner were quashed.

Sujesh.v Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3632 of 2018

¶6

PENDING AS SC 481/2017 of DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, ,KASARAGOD

¶7

CRIME NO. 351/2017 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION , KASARGOD

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED

¶9

SUJESH.V

¶10

AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.SUKUMARAN, PUTHIYA VEEDU, THOKKANAM, PANAYAL P.O., HOSDURG TALUK.

¶11

BY ADV.SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶13

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

¶14

2. PRASHANTHI.A, AGED 23 YEARS, [VICTIM] D/O.KANNAN.K AND W/O.SUJESH.V, THOKKANAM MOTTA, PANAYAL VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK

¶15

R2 BY ADV. SRI.SATHEESHAN ALAKKADAN R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SREEJA.V.

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Crl.MC.No. 3632 of 2018 ()

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

ANNEXURE-A1. CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.351 OF /2017 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD.

¶21

ANNEXURE-A2. CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.351 OF 2017 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD.

¶22

ANNEXURE-A3. A TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE

¶23

ANNEXURE-A4. A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ENDORSING THE FACTUM OF SETTLEMENT.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

R.AV

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

Crl.M.C.No.3632 of 2018

¶31

Dated this the 19^th day of July, 2018

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

The petitioner herein stands arrayed as the sole

¶34

accused in Crime No.351 of 2017 of Bekal Police Station for offences punishable under sections 370(4), 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 (1) w(1) and 3(2) (v-a) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶35

It was alleged by the defacto complainant, who is the second respondent herein that the petitioner herein offered to marry the defacto complainant. They moved together for some time. On the basis of the promise given to marry her, they had physical relationship. Later, the petitioner herein allegedly retracted from the promise to marry. Accordingly, she laid a complaint, alleging commission of the above offences and on a premise that the petitioner herein never intended to marry her and on the basis of the false promise to marry procured the

¶36

Crl.M.C.No.3632 of 2018

¶37

¶38

consent for sexual relationship. It was hence alleged that he thereby committed the offence punishable

¶39

under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Pursuant to the complaint, crime was registered and final report was filed. The matter is now pending as SC.No.481 of 2017 on the files of the District and Sessions Court, Kasaragod.

¶40

The Crl.M.C is laid by the petitioner contending that he was deeply in love with the defacto complainant and that some misunderstanding arose between the parties, which culminated in the registration of crime. It was stated that the disputes were settled and he married her evidenced by Annexure-AIII. The allegation that he had given a false promise to marry, that he retracted from the promise and that the petitioner is guilty of offences punishable under section 376 of the IPC and also the provisions of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are not sustainable. The petitioner herein sought for quashing the proceedings. It is also stated that an

¶41

Crl.M.C.No.3632 of 2018

¶42

¶43

affidavit has been affirmed by the second respondent, affirming the settlement of the disputes.

¶44

Annexure-AIII is the certificate of marriage of the petitioner with the defacto complainant. It is seen registered on 11.1.2018. An affidavit in support of the above settlement and the marriage is produced as Annexure-AIV. The reasons that led to the registration of crime is explained by the defacto complainant in Annexure-AIV. According to the defacto complainant, certain misunderstanding arose between the parties, leading to certain unwanted incident that occurred between the accused and her family members. This culminated in the registration of crime, it is stated.

¶45

It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the second respondent that very fact that parties had entered into a matrimonial relationship cuts at the root of the allegation of the second respondent that consent was obtained on the basis of a false promise. It was also

¶46

Crl.M.C.No.3632 of 2018

¶47

¶48

contended that the physical relationship entered into between two persons, who had attained the age of majority voluntarily and on a belief that they would enter into the matrimonial relationship earlier cannot be considered as a consent obtained on the basis of a false promise to marry and thereby hit by section 90 of the Indian Penal Code. To buttress that contention the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions in Uday Vs State of Karnataka (2003) 4 SCC 46, Deelip Singh Vs State of Bihar (2005) 1 SCC 88 and Kaini Rajan Vs State of Kerala (2013) 9 SCC 113.

¶49

The learned Public Prosecutor on

¶50

instructions submitted that the statement of the defacto complainant has been recorded. It is reported that they had married and they have living happily. In the above circumstances, I am satisfied that an offence under section 376 of the IPC, cannot be attracted, especially since the factum of marriage indicates a consensual physical relationship, if any.

¶51

Crl.M.C.No.3632 of 2018

¶52

¶53

Having considered this, no purpose will be served by prosecuting the petitioner herein.

¶54

Accordingly, Crl.M.C is allowed. All further proceedings in SC.No.481 of 2017 on the files of the District and Sessions Court, Kasaragod, arising from Crime No.351 of 2017 of Bekal Police Station as against the petitioner herein stand quashed.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶57

R.AV

¶58

//True Copy//

¶59

PA to Judge

Sujesh.v v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujesh.v 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

Mahesh Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Rasheed Vs State of Kerala

Anzil Vs the State of Kerala

Sajeev Vasudevan Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Rahul Renjan Vs the State of Kerala

Abdu Rahiman Vs the State of Kerala