Dismissed

Navas K v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Nov 2019Crl.MC/3476/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous petition filed to quash proceedings for rape under Section 376 IPC based on a settlement was dismissed. The Court held that grave offences like rape cannot be quashed on grounds of settlement, citing precedents, while noting that observations would not hinder other proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Petition to quash proceedings for rape on grounds of settlement was dismissed.

Navas K Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No.3476 OF 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CP 36/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PAYYANNUR

¶7

CRIME NO.113/2013 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

NAVAS K AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.HAMEED, PALLI HAJI ROAD, PAYYANUR AMSOM, THAYINERI DESOM, PO PAYYANUR, KANNUR DISTRICT

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERAL, ERNAKULAM, PIN 682031

¶13

2 VICTIM

¶14

R2 BY ADV. SRI.PHILJO VARUGHESE PHILIPS

¶15

SRI.SANTHOSH PETER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Crl.MC.No.3476 OF 2018

¶18

¶19

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶20

Crl.M.C.No.3476 of 2018

¶21

Dated this the 8^th day of November, 2019

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The prayer in the above Crl.M.C filed under the enabling provisions

¶24

contained in Section 482 Cr.P.C is as follows:

¶25

“............. to quash all further proceedings in Annexure-3 in crime No.113/13 of Payyanur Police Station and the consequent C.P.36/2018 pending on the file of Hon'ble Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyanur, otherwise the petitioner will be put to irreparable legal injury and hardship.”

¶26

Heard Sri.M.V.Amaresan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused, Sri. Santhosh Peter, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for R1 and Sri. Philjo Varughese Philips, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondent No.2.

¶27

The petitioner has been implicated in the above said impugned criminal proceedings for offences punishable under Section 376 and 506(i) of IPC. The allegation against the petitioner is that on sometime in April 2012, the petitioner/accused sexually harassed the 2^nd respondent victim. The main charge levelled against the petitioner in the above said impugned criminal proceedings is that the petitioner has forcibly committed rape on the 2^nd respondent. Now the impugned criminal proceedings for the above said offences are sought to be quashed on the ground that the parties have resolved

¶28

Crl.MC.No.3476 OF 2018

¶29

¶30

the disputes by settlement as evident from Annexure-4 affidavit filed by the 2^nd respondent defacto complainant.

¶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.}.

¶32

In the light of these aspects, it is not right and proper for this Court to consider the plea for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings, which involves the offences under Section 376(rape) of the IPC, on the ground of settlement of the parties. However, the observations and orders rendered by this Court will not in any manner trammel or influence any of the contentions of the petitioner in any other appropriate proceedings relating to this case, including the trial.

¶33

With these observations and direction, the above Crl.M.C. will stand dismissed.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

¶36

vgd

¶37

Crl.MC.No.3476 OF 2018

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶41

ANNEXURE	1	TRUE COPY OF PRIVATE COMPLAINT DATED 31.01.2013 PREFERRED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, PAYYANUR AS C.M.P. 414/2013
ANNEXURE	2	TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.113/2013 REGISTERED BY PAYYANUR POLICE
ANNEXURE	3	TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.113/13 OF PAYYANUR POLICE STATION
ANNEXURE	4	TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 1.6.2018
ANNEXURE	5	TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT DATED 23.10.2018 SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE	6	TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 3.5.2018
ANNEXURE	7	TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 30.05.2018 EXECUTED BY MR.T.VISWANATHAN

Navas K v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Navas K 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

Jagjith Vs Dhanya C.T.

Rugmini Vs State of Kerala

K.Sankaran Pillai Vs the State of Kerala

Damayanthi Vs State of Kerala

Bhagyanath Vs State of Kerala

Saju Kumar Vs State of Kerala