Quashed

Binu Balan.K.C v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Sept 2019Crl.MC/166/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashed an FIR registered for rape and kidnapping. Despite the general rule barring quashment for grave offences, the court made an exception due to the accused's marriage to the complainant and mutual settlement, prioritizing the welfare of the victim.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR and all further proceedings taken in pursuance thereof against the accused stand quashed.

Binu Balan.K.C Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 14TH BHADRA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No.166 OF 2018

¶6

CRIME NO.483/2015 OF Kakkur Police Station , Kozhikode

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

BINU BALAN.K.C

¶9

S/O BALAN,AGED 29 YRS,KAROOCHALIL HOUSE,P C PALAM POST,KAKKOOR,KOZHIKODE-673585.

¶10

BY ADV. SMT.O.M.SHALINA

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682031.

¶13

2 SANTHOSH A M AGED 45 YEARS S/O LATE VELAYUDHAN IYYAMKOTTUMMAL HOUSE,NADUVALOOR KAKKOOR P O,KOZHIKODE -673585

¶14

3 VICTIM

¶15

ADDL.R2 AND R3 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD.17.1.2018 IN CRL M.A.449/2018

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SRI.T.R.RENJITH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1, SRI.T.V.VINU FOR ADDL.R2 AND R3

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶20

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

¶21

Crl.M.C.No. 166 of 2018

¶22

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

¶23

Dated this the 5^th day of September, 2019 O R D E R

¶24

The petitioner is the sole accused in the impugned Anx. A1 FIR

¶25

in Crime No.483/2015 of Kakkoor Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Secs. 363 & 376 of the I.P.C. and Secs.3 and 4 of the POCSO Act, which has led to the pendency of the impugned proceedings before the Addl. Sessions Court (for trial of atrocities and sexual violence towards women and children), Kozhikode, against the petitioner.

¶26

Heard Smt.O.M.Shalina, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.T.R.Renjith, learned Prosecutor appearing for R-1 State of Kerala and Sri.T.V.Vinu, learned counsel appearing for R-2 & R3.

¶27

The prosecution case is that the defacto complainant was in love with the petitioner and that she went along with the petitioner accused on 9.12.2015 and the petitioner entered into sexual intercourse with her on many occasions, etc. Now it is stated that the petitioner has married the 3^rd respondent defacto complainant on 14.9.2017 as evident from Anx.4 marriage certificate. It is also stated that now the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent (who is the father of the 3^rd respondent defacto complainant) & the 3^rd respondent defacto

¶28

Crl.M.C.No. 166/2018 - : 3 :-

¶29

complainant have resolved their entire disputes and that respondents 2 and 3 have sworn to affidavit dated 3.9.2019, before this Court stating that the matter is settled between the parties and that respondents 2 and 3 are no longer interested to proceed further with the 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.

¶30

The learned Prosecutor was earlier requested to get instructions on the genuineness of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. Today, when the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned Prosecutor submits on the basis of the instructions that the petitioner has married the 3^rd respondent defacto complainant and that they are now living as husband and wife peacefully and that they have resolved their entire disputes, 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

¶32

Crl.M.C.No. 166/2018 - : 4 :-

¶33

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 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 the 3^rd

¶35

Crl.M.C.No. 166/2018 - : 5 :-

¶36

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. A1 FIR filed in Crime No.483/2015 of Kakkoor Police Station, which has led to the impugned criminal proceedings before the Addl. Sessions Court (for trial of atrocities and sexual violence towards women and children), Kozhikode, against the petitioner and all further proceedings taken in pursuance thereof as against the accused will stand quashed.

¶37

The petitioner will produce certified copies of this order before the investigating officer concerned and the competent court below concerned. The office of the Advocate General will forward copy of this order to the investigating officer concerned for information.

¶38

With these observations and directions, the above Criminal Miscellaneous Case stands finally disposed of.

¶39

sdk+

¶40

Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶41

Crl.M.C.No. 166/2018 - : 6 :-

¶42

APPENDIX

¶43

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶44

ANNEXURE AI CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.483/2015 OF KAKKOOR POLICE STATION,PALAKKAD ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF MS AMRUTHA A.M.RECORDED BY THE POLICE ON 17.12.2015 ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF SWORN STATEMENT RECORDED ON 17.12.2015 BY THE LEARNED JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS-III,KOZHIKODE ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MARRIGAGE OFFICER, CHELANNUR,KOZHIKODE DATED 14.09.2017.

Binu Balan.K.C v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binu Balan.K.C 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

Sreelatha K.V. Vs State of Kerala

Jijith Vs State of Kerala

K.v.Santhosh Vs State of Kerala

K. Sasidharan, Vs Geetha

Vimal M.Nair Vs the State of Kerala

K.P.Sureshkumar Vs the State of Kerala