The High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition to quash criminal proceedings under the POCSO Act and IPC, accepting the settlement between the accused and the complainant.
Crl.M.C.No. 4181 of 2018 allowed; proceedings in S.C. No.241/2017 are quashed.
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 SUNIL THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 4181 of 2018
AGAINST SC 241/2017 of SPECIAL COURT UNDER POCSO ACT,MANJERI
CRIME NO. 233/2016 OF KOLATHUR POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED
NIKHIL, S/O. LATE UNNEERI, AGED 25 YEARS, THOZHUTHUMPADICKAL HOUSE, PARAKKADAVU, CHEMMALASSERY, PULAMANTHOL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV.SRI.J.ABHILASH
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM THROUGH S.H.O. KOLATUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
2. GOPIKA @ UNNIMOL, D/O. SUKUMARAN, MALAYATHODY HOUSE, CHEMMALASSERY BANKUMPADY, PULAMANTHOL VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT -679 323.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.B.R.VIJAYABABU R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R. RANJITH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
acd
Crl.MC.No. 4181 of 2018 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN S.C.NO.241/2017 PENDING BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS I COURT (P.O.S.C.O.) MANJERI. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A3 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE FATHER OF DEFACTO COMPLAINANT.
TRUE COPY
P.S. TO JUDGE.
acd
SUNIL THOMAS, J.
Crl.M.C.No.4181 of 2018
Dated this the 13th day of July, 2018
ORDER
The 2nd respondent alleged that the the petitioner herein used to chase her on various days and make sexually coloured comments. This was questioned by the father of the defacto complainant. It is alleged that, pursuant to that dispute, the petitioner is stated to have assaulted the father of the 2nd respondent. She laid a complaint alleging offences under Sections 354(D) and 323 r/w. Section 34 IPC along with Section 11 (IV) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). Crime No.233/2016 was registered by the Kolathur Police. After investigation, final report was laid.
Crl.M.C.No.4181/2018
2
a case, wherein annoyance was created by the petitioner herein. It also appears that the 2nd respondent, after due deliberation, has proposed to give a go-bye to the litigation. There is nothing to show on record that the petitioner is involved in any other offence. The father of the 2nd respondent has sworn an affidavit affirming the settlement. Having considered this, I am inclined to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.
Accordingly, Crl.M.C is allowed and all further proceedings in S.C. No.241/2017 of Additional Sessions Court-I, Manjeri shall stand
quashed.
sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.
acd
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the proceedings under the POCSO Act should be quashed in view of the settlement between the parties.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Nikhil
State of Kerala
Gopika @ Unnimol
Sunil Thomas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
