Quashed

Vishnu K.N. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Sept 2019Crl.MC/2903/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed criminal proceedings against an accused who married the victim-defacto complainant. Citing exceptions for the welfare of the victim, the court exercised inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to settle disputes and allow marital life to proceed without detriment. Criminal Misc. No. 2903 of 2018 disposed of chargeable offences.

What did the court decide?

Quashed Crime No.294/2017 and all further proceedings; ordered to produce certified copy to Investigating Officer.

Vishnu K.N. Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 28TH BHADRA, 1941

¶5

CRL.MC.NO.2903 OF 2018

¶6

CRIME NO.294/2017 OF KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

VISHNU K.N., AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.BIJU KUMAR, AREEKKAL MEETHAL, MADAVOORMUKKU, MADAVOOR P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 585.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.B.PREMNATH (E)

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE, VICTIM & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, (REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM).

¶12

2 VICTIM

¶13

3 PUSHPA, AREEKKAL MEETHAL, MADAVOORMUKKU, MADAVOOR P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 585.

¶14

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1, SRI.VINEETH KURIAKOSE, ADVOCATE FOR R2

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶17

Crl. M.C. No. 2903 of 2018

¶18

Dated this the 19^th day of September, 2019

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.294/2017 of Kunnamangalam Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Secs.361, 366A & 376 of the IPC and Sec.5 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Secs.3(2)(v) & 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶21

Heard Sri.B.Premnath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Prosecutor appearing for R-1 (State) and Sri.Vineeth Kuriakose, learned counsel appearing for R-2.

¶22

The prosecution case is that, the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent (victim) were in love. Since the father of the 2^nd respondent was against it, he compelled the 2^nd respondent to marry another person. When the 3^rd respondent (mother of the victim) came to know that it was the petitioner who has taken

¶23

Crl.M.C. No. 2903 of 2018

¶24

..3..

¶25

away the 2^nd respondent, she filed a complaint before the 1^st respondent alleging that the 2^nd respondent is missing and that the petitioner had taken away her daughter etc, which has led to the institution of the abovesaid crime.

¶26

Now the petitioner accused has married the 2^nd respondent lady defacto complainant on 11.2.2018 as evident from Anx.VI marriage certificate dated 5.6.2018 issued by the notified Registrar of Marriages, issued as per the provisions contained in Rule 11(1) of the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008. The 3^rd respondent (mother of the victim) who is the defacto complainant in this case has also separately filed Anx.VII affidavit stating that the matter has been fully settled with the petitioner accused, and that they are not interested to continue the impugned prosecution measures any longer, and that it will be only in the interest of the 2^nd respondent victim that the abovesaid criminal proceedings are quashed, as otherwise marital life will be detrimentally affected, etc.

¶27

Earlier the learned Prosecutor was requested to get

¶28

..4..

¶29

Crl.M.C. No. 2903 of 2018

¶30

instructions in the matter, and today when the matter is being taken up for consideration, learned Prosecutor would submit on the basis of instructions of the Investigating Officer that the Investigating Officer has conducted an enquiry and it has revealed that the petitioner has already married the 2^nd respondent victim, and that he has also taken statement of the 2^nd respondent in which she has stated that the averments in Anx.IV affidavit filed by her are correct, and that the parties are now living together as husband and wife, 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 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

¶32

..5..

¶33

Crl.M.C. No. 2903 of 2018

¶34

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

¶35

In the light of the abovesaid aspects, more particularly in the light of the abovesaid submission made on behalf of respondents 2 and 3, this Court is inclined to consider the plea for quashment of the impugned of the criminal proceedings, as

¶36

Crl.M.C. No. 2903 of 2018

¶37

..6..

¶38

otherwise it will detrimentally affect the family life of the defacto complainant. Accordingly, it is ordered that the impugned Crime No.294/2017 of Kunnamangalam 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 Investigating Officer concerned for necessary information.

¶39

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

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶42

MMG

¶43

Crl.M.C. No. 2903 of 2018

¶44

..7..

¶45

APPENDIX

¶46

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶47

ANNEXURE-I TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE ADMISSION REGISTER OF THE PETITIONER, IN GOVERNMENT VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DATED NIL.

¶48

ANNEXURE-II TRUE COPY OF SECONDARY SCHOOL LEAVING CERTIFICATE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT FROM CHAKKALAKKAL HIGH SCHOOL, MADAVOOR.

¶49

ANNEXURE-III TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CARD FROM THE INSTITUTE OF MATERNAL & CHILD HEALTH, KOZHIKODE DATED 17.6.2017.

¶50

ANNEXURE-IV ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 30.4.2018 SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶51

ANNEXURE-V TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.118030100164 ISSUED BY THE MADAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 26.4.2018.

¶52

ANNEXURE-VI TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE OF THE PETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENT OF LOCAL REGISTRAR OF MARRIAGES (COMMON), MADAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH WITH NO.1942/2018 DATED 5-6-2018.

¶53

ANNEXURE-VII

¶54

ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 30-4-2018 SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Vishnu K.N. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu K.N. 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

Shajitha Vs State of Kerala

Mansoor Babu Vs the State of Kerala

Aboobacker.a.C Vs State of Kerala

Suresh.v Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh T.N., Vs State of Kerala

Sharafudheen.K.P., Vs the State of Kerala