Dismissed

Adam Chenangadath v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Oct 2019Crl.MC/3557/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This case involves a petition to quash an FIR alleging sexual offences under IPC 377 and POCSO against the petitioner. Despite an alleged settlement between the parties, the court holding that serious sexual offences cannot be quashed based on settlement. The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition was dismissed accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.146/2018 is dismissed.

Adam Chenangadath Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019/17TH ASWINA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No.3557 OF 2018

¶6

CRIME NO.146/2018 OF Tirur Police Station , Malappuram

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

ADAM CHENANGADATH, S/O.MOHAMMED, AGED 48 YRS, CHENANGADATH HOUSE, NADUVILANGADI, POST POOKAYIL, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.T.SHIHABUDHEEN

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31.

¶12

2 MOHAMMED HASHIR, S/O.ABDUL HAMEED, AGED 16 YRS, MANAL PARAMBIL HOUSE, KALOOR, PUTHUPALLY, POST PURATHOOR, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676102,(MINOR REPRESENTED BY THE MOTHER 3RD RESPONDENT).

¶13

3 NASEEMA, W/O.ABDUL HAMEED, AGED 34 YRS, MANAL PARAMBIL HOUSE, KALOOR, PUTHUPALLY, POST PURATHOOR, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676102.

¶14

4 ASHRAF, S/O.KUNJAVU, AGED 62 YRS, CHEKKOLI PARAMBIL HOUSE, POST PURATHOOR, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676102.

¶15

R1-2 BY ADV. SMT.N.S.SOUMYA MOL

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SRI.T.RRENJITH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

::2::

¶20

Crl.MC.No.3557 OF 2018

¶21

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J .

¶22

Crl.M.C.No.3557 Of 2018

¶23

Dated this the 9^th day of October, 2019.

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The case projected in this Crl.M.C is as follows:

¶26

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.146/2018 of Tirur Police Station. The 2^nd respondent is the victim, the 3^rd respondent is the mother of the victim and the 4^th respondent is the de facto complainant, who is the father of the 3^rd respondent. The abovesaid crime has been registered on the basis of the complaint of the 4^th respondent against the petitioner. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sec.377 I.P.C and Secs.3(d) & 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The investigation is in progress. In the meanwhile, the dispute between the parties is amicably settled through mediation. In the above settlement, the respondents 2 to 4 stated that they have no subsisting grievance against the petitioner. Accordingly, the respondents 3 & 4 have sworn Anxs-3 & 4 affidavit before this Court affirming that they have no subsisting grievance against the

¶27

::3::

¶28

Crl.MC.No.3557 OF 2018

¶29

petitioner. It is in the light of these averments, that the instant Crl.M.C has been filed seeking to quash Anx-A1 FIR in Crime No.146/2018 of Tirur Police Station, Malappuram District.

¶30

Heard Sri.T.Shihabudheen, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.T.R.Renjith, learned Prosecutor appearing for R-1 State and Smt.N.S.Soumyamol, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4.

¶31

It is now well settled by a series of ruling of the Apex Court and various High Courts including this Court that it may not be right and proper for the High Court to exercise inherent powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C for quashment of serious offences as per Sec.376 on the ground of settlement. {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.}. The said dictum will also be equally applicable in a case where quashment is sought for offence under Sec.377 of the I.P.C on the ground of settlement. The said dictum would also apply to penetrative sexual intercourse as conceived in Sec.3 of the POCSO Act. Hence it may not be right

¶32

::4::

¶33

Crl.MC.No.3557 OF 2018

¶34

and proper for this Court to exercise the extra ordinary power under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement.

¶35

Accordingly, the above Crl.M.C will stand dismissed.

¶36

Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.

¶37

bkn/-

¶38

::5::

¶39

Crl.MC.No.3557 OF 2018

¶40

APPENDIX

¶41

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶42

ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO.146/2018 OF TIRUR POLICE STATION DATED 2.3.2018.

¶43

ANNEXURE A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.S. IN CRIME NO.146/2018 OF TIRUR POLICE STATION DATED 2.3.2018. ANNEXURE A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 21.4.2018. ANNEXURE A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 21.4.2018.

Adam Chenangadath v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adam Chenangadath 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

V.v.Abdul Siyad Vs C.P.Muhsina Sulhath

Gregory Simon T., Vs Shine P.Jacob

Eldhose Alias Vs Station House Officer

Selvaraj Vs State of Kerala

Sinilkumar.E.K Vs K.G.Radhakrishnan

Kurian Abraham, Vs Smt. Anu R.S