Quashed

Shajahan, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Jun 2019Crl.MC/2084/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, applying settled Supreme Court principles, quashed criminal proceedings in a POCSO case where the accused and the minor complainant had amicably settled the dispute. The court held that continuing the prosecution would serve no purpose and would only waste judicial time.

What did the court decide?

The impugned final report/charge sheet filed in FIR Cr.No.930/2013 and consequent S.C.No.824/2013, along with all further proceedings pending against the accused, are quashed.

Shajahan, Vs 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 5TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No.2084 of 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 824/2013 of DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THRISSUR

¶7

CRIME NO.930/2013 OF Cherpu Police Station , Thrissur

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

SHAJAHAN,AGED 48 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMED, PUTHIYAVEETIL HOUSE, KURUMBILAVU P.O., CHAZHUR, THRISSUR, KERALA.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.S.RENJITH SRI.K.R.PRATHISH

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

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

¶13

2 SHAFEENA, AGED 21 YEARS D/O.SHAJAHAN, THACHAVALATH HOUSE, ELOORKARA, MUPPATHADAM P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN-683110.

¶14

BY ADV. SMT.SHERIN A.RAHIM

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU -SR.P.P

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶19

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

¶20

Crl.M.C.No. 2084 of 2019

¶21

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

¶22

Dated this the 26^th day of June, 2019 O R D E R

¶23

The petitioner herein is the accused in the impugned Anx. A-2

¶24

final report/charge sheet filed in Anx. A-1 FIR in Crime No.930/2013 of Cerpu Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Secs.8 & 9 of the POCSO Act, Sec. 23 of the Juvenile Justice Act and Sec. Sec.354A(i) of the I.P.C, which has led to the institution of S.C.No. 824/2013 on the file of the Sessions Court, Thrissur, on the basis of the complaint of the 2^nd respondent defacto complainant. It is stated that now the entire disputes between the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent defacto complainant have been settled amicably and that the 2^nd respondent has sworn to Anx. A5 affidavit before this Court, wherein it is stated that she has settled the entire disputes with the petitioner and that she has no objection for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner. It is in the light of these aspects that the petitioner has preferred the instant Crl.M.C. with the prayer to quash the impugned criminal proceedings against him.

¶25

In a catena of decisions, the Apex Court has held that, in

¶26

appropriate cases involving even non-compoundable offences, the

¶27

Crl.M.C.2084/19 - : 3 :-

¶28

High Court can quash prosecution by exercise of the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C., if the parties have really settled the whole dispute or if the continuance of the prosecution will not serve any purpose. Here, this Court finds a real case of settlement between the parties and it is also found that continuance of the prosecution in such a situation will not serve any purpose other than wasting the precious time of the court, when the case ultimately comes before the court. On a perusal of the petition and on a close scrutiny of the investigation materials on record and the affidavit of settlement and taking into account the attendant facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court in the cases as in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160 = (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr . reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, more particularly paragraph 29 thereof, could be applied in this case to consider the prayer for quashment.

¶29

Accordingly, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the impugned Anx. A-2 final report/charge sheet filed in Anx. A-1 FIR in Crime No.930/2013 of Cerpu Police Station, which has led to the

¶30

Crl.M.C.2084/19 - : 4 :-

¶31

institution of S.C.No. 824/2013 on the file of the Sessions Court, Thrissur and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against the accused will stand quashed.

¶32

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.

¶33

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

¶34

sdk+

¶35

Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶36

Crl.M.C.2084/19 - : 5 :-

¶37

APPENDIX

¶38

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶39

ANNEXURE-A1	CERTIFIED NO.930/201	COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS IN CRIME 3 OF CHERPU POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE-A2	CERTIFIED 824 OF 20 THRISSUR.	COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN SC NO. 13 OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT,
ANNEXURE-A3	TRUE COPY COURT, ER 2000 OF 20	OF THE JUDGMENT BEFORE THE FAMILY NAKULAM DATED 17/9/2018 IN OP NO. 18
ANNEXURE-A4	TRUE COPY COURT DAT 2016.	OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE ED 6/2/2019 IN OP (CRL.) NO.363 OF
ANNEXURE-A5	AFFIDAVIT	SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Shajahan, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shajahan, 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

Ubaid, Vs State of Kerala

Subair Vs State of Kerala

Fasalul Rahman, Vs State of Kerala

Aparna Chandran, Vs Gireesh.Kp

Rehna Sainan Vs State of Kerala

Ajmal Sha Vs State of Kerala