Allowed

Midhun Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Jun 2019Crl.MC/1302/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioner for rape and POCSO offences. The court allowed quashment despite the gravity of the charges due to the settled nature of the dispute, the marriage between the accused and complainant, and the victim's insistence on termination to safeguard her future.

What did the court decide?

Impugned FIR in Crime No. 1400/2016 and all further proceedings stood quashed.

Midhun Kumar Vs State of Kerala — Arbitration | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No.1302 of 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 157/2018 of DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA

¶7

CRIME NO.1400/2016 OF Mannar Police Station , Alappuzha

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

MIDHUN KUMAR, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI, MEKKATTU(PAKATHU), VEEDU, CHENNIHALA MURI, THRIPPERUNTHURA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

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

¶13

2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MANNAR POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶14

3 OMANAKUTTAN PILLAI, AGED 55 YEARS S/O.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, AMBADIYIL VEEDU, CHERUKOL MURI, CHENNITHALA VILLAGE, MANNAR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶15

4 VICTIM

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SMT.PRIYA SHANAVAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1 AND R2, SRI.P.V.DILEEP FOR R3 AND R4

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶20

==================

¶21

Crl.M.C.No. 1302 of 2019 ==================

¶22

Dated this the 20^th day of June, 2019

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The petitioner is the sole accused in Anx.A1 FIR in Crime No.

¶25

1400/2016 of Mannar Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Sec. 376 of the I.P.C. and Secs.3 & 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

¶26

Heard Sri.K.V.Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Priya Shanavas, learned Prosecutor appearing for respondents 1 & 2 and Sri.P.V.Dileep, learned counsel appearing for R-3 & R-4.

¶27

The prosecution case is that the petitioner had entered into sexual intercourse with the lady defacto complainant in the year 2016 promising her that he will marry her and thus he has committed the abovesaid offence, which has led to the institution of the abovesaid crime. Now it is stated that the petitioner has married the 4^th respondent defacto complainant on 4.8.2017, as evident from Anx.C marriage certificate. It is also stated that now the petitioner and the respondents 3 and 4 have resolved their disputes and respondents 3 & 4 have sworn to Anxs.D & E affidavits respectively, before this Court stating that the matter is settled between them and

¶28

that they are no longer interested to proceed further with the

¶29

Crl.M.C.1302/19 - : 3 :-

¶30

impugned criminal proceedings and since the defacto complainant has married the petitioner, it is highly imperative that the impugned criminal proceedings are terminated by quashment of the same in view of the settlement, as otherwise her marital life would be detrimentally affected, etc.

¶31

It is by now well settled that grave and serious offences as the one under Sec.376 (rape) of the I.P.C. cannot be the subject matter of quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between the accused and the victim. {see Shimbhu & Anr. v. State of Haryana [2014 (13) SCC 318], Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat [ ( 2017) 9 SCC 641], Anita Maria Dias v. State of Maharashtra [(2018) 3 SCC 290], Sebastian @ Solly v. State of Kerala [2015 (1) KLJ 384, etc.}. However, this Court has held in various decisions including the decisions as in Freddy @ Antony Francis & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr . [2017 KHC 344 = 2018 (1) KLD 558), Denu P.Thampi v. Ms.X , [2019(3) KHC 199], etc. that the exception to the above approach could be in cases where the accused has married the defacto complainant and they have decided to settle all the disputes and for the predominant purpose of the welfare of the defacto complainant/ victim, to ensure her better future life, it is only

¶32

Crl.M.C.1302/19 - : 4 :-

¶33

just and proper that this Court in exercise of the extra ordinary inherent powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. could quash the impugned criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between the parties in cases where the accused has married the defacto complainant and the defacto complainant is insisting for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings, etc.

¶34

In the light of the abovesaid aspects, more particularly in the light of the abovesaid submission made on behalf of respondents 3 and 4, this Court is inclined to consider the plea for quashment of the impugned of the criminal proceedings, as otherwise it will detrimentally affect the family life of the defacto complainant. Accordingly, it is ordered that the impugned Anx.A1 FIR in Crime No. 1400/2016 of Mannar Police Station and all further proceedings taken in pursuance thereof as against the accused will stand quashed.

¶35

The petitioner may produce certified copy of this order before the Magistrate court concerned and before the investigating officer concerned for necessary information.

¶36

With these observations and directions, the above Crl.M.C. stands finally disposed of.

¶37

Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶38

sdk+

¶39

Crl.M.C.1302/19 - : 5 :-

¶40

APPENDIX

¶41

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶42

ANNEXURE	A A TRUE COPY O NO.1400/2016 OF	F THE MANNAR	FIR AND FIS IN CRIME POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE	B A TRUE COPY O NO.1400/2016 OF	F THE MANNAR	FINAL REPORT IN CRIME POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE	C A TRUE COPY OF 04/08/2017 MARRI	THE MA AGE OF	RRIAGE CERTIFICATE DATED FICE, MANNAR, ALAPPUZHA.
ANNEXURE	D AFFIDAVIT OF THE	3RD R	ESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE	E AFFIDAVIT OF THE	4TH R	ESPONDENT

Midhun Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Midhun Kumar 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

Leo George Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Ashraf.K.K., Vs Afeefa.K.

Shanu @ Abdul Rahman Vs State of Kerala

Pushpakaran Vs the State of Kerala

Siyar Manuraj Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Basheer Vs Palakkavalappil Puthiyamaliyekkal Mariyambeevi