Allowed

Jyothi Basu, v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Jun 2019Crl.MC/132/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed the final report and criminal proceedings against a male accused for sexual assault and offences under POCSO. The court allowed the plea because the accused had married the complainant, disputes were settled, and she requested quashing to protect her marital life, distinguishing it from cases that cannot be quashed on settlement alone.

What did the court decide?

Final report in Crime No.159/2017 and all proceedings against the accused were quashed.

Jyothi Basu, Vs the State of Kerala — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No.132 of 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 1053/207 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, MANJERI

¶7

CRIME NO.159/2017 OF Wandoor Police Station , Malappuram

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

JYOTHI BASU, AGED 27 YEARS

¶10

S/O. CHERIYAKUNHAN, CHELAKKODAN HOUSE, POOLAKKAL, THIRUVALI AMSOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH

¶12

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT :

¶13

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031, THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WANDOOR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶14

2 PRANEESHA, AGED 19 YEARS, D/O NARAYANAN, EDATHIL HOUSE, KARAD P.O., KURUMPOYIL, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 679 339 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.PRAVEEN

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1, SRI.K.S.PRAVEEN FOR R2

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Crl.MC.No.132 of 2019

¶19

¶20

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶21

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

¶22

Crl.M.C.No. 132 of 2019

¶23

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

¶24

Dated this the 7th day of June, 2019

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

The petitioner is the sole accused in Anx.A final report in Crime No.159/2017 of Wandoor Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Sec. 354 I.P.C and Sections 5 r/w 6, 7 r/w 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).

¶27

Heard Sri.Rajesh K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Amjad Ali, learned Prosecutor appearing for respondent, state and Sri.K.S.Praveen, learned counsel appearing for R2.

¶28

The prosecution case is that the petitioner had entered into sexual intercourse with the lady defacto complainant in the year 2015 promising her that he will marry her and thus he committed the abovesaid offence, which has led to the institution of the abovesaid crime. Now it is stated that the petitioner has married the 2^nd respondent defacto complainant on 21.07.2018, as evident from Anx. B marriage certificate. It is also stated that now the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent defacto complainant have resolved their disputes and the 2^nd respondent has sworn to Anx.C affidavit dated 01.01.2019 before this Court stating that the matter is settled between them and that they are no longer interested to proceed further with the impugned criminal proceedings and since the defacto complainant

¶29

Crl.MC.No.132 of 2019

¶30

¶31

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.

¶32

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 one as in Freddy @ Antony Francis & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr . [2017 KHC 344 = 2018 (1) KLD 558) 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 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

¶33

Crl.MC.No.132 of 2019

¶34

¶35

proceedings, etc.

¶36

In the light of the abovesaid aspects, more particularly in the light of the abovesaid submission made on behalf of the 2^nd respondent defacto complainant, 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.A in Crime No. 159/2017 of Wandoor Police Station, and all further proceedings taken in pursuance thereof as against the accused will stand quashed. The petitioner may produce certified copy of this order before the Magistrate court concerned and before the investigating officer concerned for necessary information.

¶37

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

¶38

SD/-

¶39

ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

¶40

SKS

¶41

Crl.MC.No.132 of 2019

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX

¶44

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶45

ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT/CHARGE IN CRIME NO.159/2017 OF THE WANDOOR POLICE STATION

¶46

ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE ISSUED BY THE MARRIAGE OFFICER, WANDOOR DATED 21.7.2018 ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 1.1.2019

Jyothi Basu, v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyothi Basu, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muhammed Asif Vs State of Kerala

Ismail M. Vs State of Kerala

Mobin T Joy Vs State of Kerala

Siljo Thomas Vs Soumya Sebastian

Paul, Vs State of Kerala

Ashik.P @ Muhammed Ashik.P Vs the State of Kerala