Dismissed

Siddique v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Aug 2019Crl.MC/2605/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a petition to quash criminal proceedings under Sec. 376 IPC. The Court held that settlement cannot justify quashing for grave sexual offences unless the accused married the victim, which was not established here. Proceedings remain active.

What did the court decide?

Quashment of criminal proceedings was denied; liberty to raise contentions in appropriate proceedings was granted.

Siddique Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1941

¶5

CRL.MC.NO.2605 OF 2019(E)

¶6

LP 167/2004 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOLLAM

¶7

CRIME NO.319/2001 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

SIDDIQUE, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. IBRAHIMKUTTY, BRANTHAN VAYAL, PANTHRANDUMURI CHERI, THATTAMALA, KOLLAM-691020.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.R.KISHORE (KALLUMTHAZHAM)

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶13

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶14

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

2 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

¶16

EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM-691001.

¶17

3 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM-691011.

¶18

4 VICTIM

¶19

SRI.T.R.RENJITH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1 TO R3, SRI.K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN FOR R4

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. -------------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No. 2605 of 2019

¶22

Dated this the 5^th day of August, 2019

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The prayer in the above Criminal Miscellaneous Case is as follows:

¶25

“To quash all further proceedings in Annexure A1 FIR in Crime No.310 of 2001 of the Kollam East Police Station and also Final Report now numbered as LP 167/2004 pending before JFCM-II, Kollam on the basis of Annexure 3 affidavit, for the ends of justice.”

¶26

2. It is by now well established that in the case of serious

¶27

and grave offences as in Sec.376 I.P.C. it may not be right and proper for this Court to exercise its extra ordinary inherent powers conferred under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned proceedings for such grave offences on the ground of the settlement between the accused and the defacto complainant

¶28

{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 also held that there

¶29

..3..

¶30

Crl.M.C. No. 2605 of 2019

¶31

can be exception to this approach in cases where the accused involved in the offence under Sec.376 of the I.P.C. has subsequently married the defacto complainant victim, and they have arrived at a settlement and for the predominant purpose of their better future life, this Court could exercise its powers to consider the plea for quashment of such criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between the parties, etc. However, in the facts of this case, the petitioner has no case that he has married the defacto complainant. Therefore, such exceptional approach cannot be pressed into service in this case. Hence in view of the abovesaid well settled legal position, it may not be right and proper for this Court to quash the impugned criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between the parties, as grave and serious offence as per Sec. 376 of the I.P.C. is involved.

¶32

Learned Prosecutor would now submit on the basis of Investigating Officer concerned that, steps will be taken by the Investigating Officer to record the statement of the 4^th respondent victim as per Sec.164 of the Cr.P.C. before the jurisdictional

¶33

..4..

¶34

Crl.M.C. No. 2605 of 2019

¶35

Magistrate Court concerned without any further delay.

¶36

The said submission made on behalf of the Investigating Officer is recorded. In view of the abovesaid aspects, this Court is not in a position to accede to the request of the petitioner for quashment of impugned criminal proceedings on the basis of settlement. All contentions raised by the petitioner are left open to be raised and decided in other appropriate proceedings in the manner known to law.

¶37

With the said liberty, the above Criminal Miscellaneous Case will stand disposed of.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶40

MMG

¶41

Crl.M.C. No. 2605 of 2019

¶42

..5..

¶43

APPENDIX

¶44

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶45

ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NUMBERED AS 319/2001 DATED 21.04.2001. ANNEXURE AII THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT NUMBERED AS LP 167/2004. ANNEXURE AIII THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT.

Siddique v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddique 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

Shafaf P.K., Vs State of Kerala

Subin Chandran @ Subin.K.C Vs State of Kerala

Muraleedharan P.K. Vs State of Kerala

George Abraham Vs Prince Abraham George ( Minor)

George Abraham Vs Prince Abraham George (Minor)

Shaji. R.P. Vs Soudha.K.