Kerala High Court quashed FIR and proceedings for rape, cheating, and hurt alleged during marriage. Court held sexual acts within solemnized marriage were not offenses and settlement allowed quashment under Section 482 CrPC.
Annexure-A1 FIR in Crime No.687/2018 and all further proceedings against accused stood quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 20TH KARTHIKA, 1941
Crl.MC.No.2777 OF 2019(F)
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 55/2018 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY
CRIME NO.687/2018 OF PANOOR POLICE STATION, KANNUR
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 6:
1 ADHEEB KARAT AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.ABDULLA KARAT, KARAT HOUSE, P.O.ELENGODE, THALASSERY, KANNUR, PIN-670692.
2 ABDULLA KARAT, AGED 61 YEARS S/O.MOHAMMED, KARAT HOUSE, P.O.ELANGODE, THALASSERY, KANNUR, PIN-670692.
3 ANSAR KARAT, AGED 37 YEARS S/O.ABDULLA, KARAT HOUSE, P.O.ELANGODE, THALASSERY, KANNUR, PIN-670692.
4 SAINABA KARAT, AGED 52 YEARS W/O.ABDULLA KARAT, KARAT HOUSE, P.O.ELANGODE, THALASSERY, KANNUR, PIN-670692.
5 ASEERA, AGED 32 YEARS W/O.AFSAL, KARAT HOUSE, P.O.ELANGODE, THALASSERY, KANNUR, PIN-670692.
6 SAMEENA, AGED 29 YEARS W/O JAFFER, KARAT HOUSE, P.O.ELANGODE, THALASSERY, KANNUR, PIN-670692.
Crl.MC.No.2777 OF 2019(F)
2
BY ADVS. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR.) SMT.DEEPTHI S.MENON SMT.ANUROOPA JAYADEVAN
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031.
2 VICTIM
R2 BY ADV. SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI (SR.) R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.SASI R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.BENNY (B-865) R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.ANIL R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.SUNILKUMAR R2 BY ADV. SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B.
SRI.T.R.RENJITH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No.2777 OF 2019(F)
3
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
=========================== Crl.M.C No.2777 of 2019
===========================
Dated this the 11th day of November, 2019
ORDER
The facts projected in this Crl.M.C filed under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C are as follows:
The petitioners herein are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 6 in Crime No.687/2018 of the Panoor Police Station. The offences alleged are under Secs.420, 323 and 376 of the IPC. The said case was registered on 04.10.2018 on the basis of a complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent herein before the Circle Inspector of Police, Panoor on 04.10.2018. The 1st petitioner herein is the husband of the 2nd respondent herein. Petitioners 2 and 4 are the parents of the 1st petitioner and parents-in-law of the 2nd respondent. The 3rd petitioner is the brother of the 1st petitioner. Petitioners 5 and 6 are the sisters of the 1st petitioner. They are married and presently residing at Dubai and Saudi Arabia along with their family. The 1st petitioner is presently employed abroad. The gist of the allegations
Crl.MC.No.2777 OF 2019(F)
4
in the complaint is that the 1st petitioner married the 2nd respondent on 05.08.2017 and they lived together till 19.10.2017 in the matrimonial home. Thereafter, the 1st petitioner left to the Gulf countries in connection with his employment. It is alleged that since the petitioners did not agree to register the marriage as per the rules after conducting the Nikah on 05.08.2017, they cheated her. It is also alleged that the 1st petitioner who is the husband of the 2nd respondent committed forcible sexual intercourse with the 2nd respondent during the period they were living together as husband and wife in the matrimonial home and thereby committed the offence of rape. It is also alleged that when the complainant refused to have sexual intercourse, she was assaulted and thus an offence under Sec.323 of the IPC is also committed by the 1st petitioner. The complaint was filed on 04.10.2018 about one year after the alleged incident. Meanwhile, an application under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act was filed by the 2nd respondent admitting her status as legally wedded wife of the 1st petitioner. Now, from 19.10.2017 the parties are living separately. The petitioners submit that the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent do not disclose any offence against them and they are seeking to quash the FIR registered against them and all proceedings against them
Crl.MC.No.2777 OF 2019(F)
5
pursuant to them. It is in the light of these factual averments and contentions, the petitioner has filed the instant Crl.M.C with the following prayers:
“............. to call for the records leading to Annexure-A1 and to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.687/2018 of the Panoor Police Station, Kannur and to exonerate the petitioners of all allegations leveled against them.”
Crl.MC.No.2777 OF 2019(F)
6
some of the other co-accused persons have assaulted her and thereby the other accused persons have committed the offence as per Secs.420 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
Crl.MC.No.2777 OF 2019(F)
7
the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, etc. Therefore, it is now conceded even by the 2nd respondent that the marriage between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent was indeed solemnized. It is too elementary proposition that the factum of the solemnization of the marriage and its registration are two different things and merely because a solemnized marriage is not registered, will not take away the legal efficacy of the solemnization of the marriage. Since the alleged incidents of sexual intercourse has taken place after the solemnization of the marriage, the said alleged acts said to have been committed by the 2nd respondent, would be nothing but a marital rape at best, as in which is protected in terms of Exception No.2 of Sec.375 and hence it is not an offence at all. As against the other offence as per Secs.420 & 320 of the Indian Penal Code, those offences are capable of being quashed on the ground of settlement, as they are not very serious offences.
Crl.MC.No.2777 OF 2019(F)
8
dissolved by pronouncement of a valid talaq and that she has received a due compensation amount, etc. Further it is stated by the learned Prosecutor that the Investigating Officer has also received the certificate of the solemnization of the customary marriage between the parties from the Mahallu Committee concerned.
Crl.MC.No.2777 OF 2019(F)
9
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.
With these observations and directions, the above Criminal Miscellaneous Case stands finally disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE
vgd
Crl.MC.No.2777 OF 2019(F)
10
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
| ANNEXURE A1 | CERTIFIED NO.687/2018 AND THE FI 2ND RESPOND |
COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME OF THE PANOOR POLICE STATION RST INFORMATION STATEMENT BY THE ENT IN THE ABOVE CRIME. |
|---|---|---|
| ANNEXURE A-2 | TRUE COPY COURT DATE NO.7576/201 |
OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE D 27.11.2018 IN BAIL APPLICATION 8. |
| ANNEXURE A3 | TRUE COPY 10.8.2018 RESPONDENT |
OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND TO THE PETITIONERS. |
| ANNEXURE A4 | TRUE COPY C.M.P.NO.49 |
OF THE ORDER DATED 18.3.2019 IN 27/2018 IN M.C.NO.55/2018 OF THE |
| ADDITIONAL COURT, THAL |
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE'S ASSERY. |
|
| ANNEXURE A5 | THE ORIGI SWORN TO BY |
NAL AFFIDAVIT DATED 05.10.2019 THE 2ND RESPONDENT |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether prosecution for rape, cheating, and voluntarily causing hurt arising from a matrimonial dispute can be quashed when parties have settled the dispute.
Whether non-registration of a solemnized marriage invalidates the marriage or converts marital relations into grounds for criminal prosecution.
Whether settlement between parties warrants quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC to prevent waste of court time.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of PunjabExplained¶53
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160 = (2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr.Applied¶53
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr, (2014) 6 SCC 466 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
ADHEEB KARAT and 5 others
THE STATE OF KERALA
VICTIM
ALEXANDER THOMAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
