High Court of Kerala quashed proceedings in a child marriage case because the alleged victim filed a counter-statement in Family Court claiming she was a major, creating estoppel and rendering the prosecution case unsustainable.
Impugned FIR No.112/2011 and all further proceedings against the accused persons in S.C.No. 233/2015 are 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
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 28TH KARTHIKA, 1941
Crl.MC.No.5947 OF 2015
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 233/2015 OF DISTRICT COURT& SESSIONS COURT,MANJERI
PETITIONER/S:
RESPONDENT/S:
SRI.T.R.RENJITH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
================== Crl.M.C.No. 5947 of 2015
==================
Dated this the 19th day of November, 2019 O R D E R
The case set up in the above Criminal Miscellaneous Case is as follows:
The petitioners herein are the accused in S.C.No. 233/2015 on the file of the Sessions Court, Manjeri, based on the private complaint filed by the 1st respondent for offences punishable under Secs. 10 and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. The allegation in the complaint is that the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention to commit the above offence, compelled the complainant to conduct the marriage of the 2nd daughter of the 1st respondent Filsina, who was a minor at the relevant time, with the 1st accused and thereby committed the abovesaid offence. It is stated that when the complaint was forwarded for investigation, the Kalikavu Police, after investigation filed final report stating that a complaint on the same subject matter had been charge sheeted against the defacto complainant and his relatives, as per the complaint filed by the 1st petitioner and the present complaint is filed out of vengeance, etc. It is further stated that the daughter of the 1st respondent, Filsina has filed an affidavit as well as counter statement
Crl.M.C.5947/15 - : 3 :-
in O.P.No. 413/2010 before the Family Court, Malappuram, in which
she has stated that she was major at the time of her marriage and thus the 1st respondent cannot turn around and say otherwise against the contents of the abovesaid document. It is further stated that thus any
of the charges levelled against the petitioners are not legally sustainable. It is in the light of the abovesaid averments and contentions that the petitioners have filed the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Case with the following prayers:
learned Prosecutor appearing for the 2nd respondent State. Though notice has been duly served on R-1 (defacto complainant), there is no appearance for that party.
Crl.M.C.5947/15 - : 4 :-
Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. The core of the allegations in the complaint is that the petitioners/accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention had compelled the complainant to conduct marriage of Filsina, the 2nd daughter of the 1st respondent herein, who was a minor at the relevant time, with the 1st accused and thereby, the accused persons have committed the abovesaid offences. The petitioners would strongly urge that the abovesaid allegations are false and baseless.
Crl.M.C.5947/15 - : 5 :-
solemnization of the marriage and they are esttoped from contending otherwise. Further it is pointed out that the abovesaid criminal proceedings were initiated only on account of matrimonial disputes between the spouses, etc.
Crl.M.C.5947/15 - : 6 :-
Crl.M.C.5947/15 - : 7 :-
circumstances that the marriage was solemnized. Further that the petitioners, more particularly, A-1, had insisted that Filsina should make available her SSLC book for verification of her date of birth and she had evasively refused to make it available to the petitioners. Later, when the marital relationship was strained between the spouses, the abovesaid Filsina, the daughter of the 1st respondent, has filed an Original Petition as O.P.No. 413/2010 before the Family Court, Malappuram, seeking for return of gold ornaments and for claiming for maintenance. In the said Original Petition before the Family Court, the 1st petitioner (A-1) had taken a specific contention that the Filsina, daughter of the 1st respondent is a minor, and therefore not competent to file the said Original Petition before the Family Court and I.A.No. 148/2010 was filed before the Family Court to dismiss the said Original Petition on that ground. In the said I.A., Filsina, the daughter of the 1st respondent, has filed Anx.5 counter statement stating that she was a major at the time of filing of the said Original Petition and that her age as shown in the SSLC book is incorrect and that she had informed the 1st petitioner herein even before the marriage that she was a major before the marriage and the marriage was performed accordingly and she has thus asserted that
Crl.M.C.5947/15 - : 8 :-
she has completed the majority age of 18 years at the time of the solemnization of the marriage, etc. Copy of the said counter statement filed by the said Filsina in the said O.P.No. 413/2010 before the Family Court Manjeri, has been produced as Anx. 5. Further, it is also pointed out that, since Filsina had filed the said counter statement stating that she was a major before the Family Court, the Police has charge sheeted her for offences under Secs. 193, 199, 200, 209 of the I.P.C. and that Anx. 6 Calendar Case C.C.No. 24/2012 is pending before the Juvenile Justice Board, concerned etc.
Crl.M.C.5947/15 - : 9 :-
Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the further continuance of the impugned criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the court and therefore, the same is liable to be interdicted by exercising the extraordinary discretion conferred by way of inherent powers on this Court under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C.
The petitioners will produce certified copies of this order before the investigating officer concerned and the competent court below concerned. The office of the Advocate General will forward copy of this order to the investigating officer concerned for information.
With these observations and directions, the above Criminal Miscellaneous Case stands finally disposed of.
sdk+
Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
Crl.M.C.5947/15 - : 10 :-
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
| ANNEXURE P1 | ANNEXURE MANJERI I |
1: N C |
TRUE COPY P 19/2015 |
OF THE ORDER OF JFCM-I, DT.31-3-2015. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANNEXURE P2 | ANNEXURE BY R1. |
2: | TRUE COPY | OF THE COMPLAINT FILED |
| ANNEXURE P3 | ANNEXURE FILED BY |
3: THE |
TRUE COP KALIKAVU |
Y OF THE FINAL REPORT POLICE AS RC 102/2011. |
| ANNEXURE P4 | ANNEXURE BY THE 1S |
4: T P |
TRUE COPY ETITIONER. |
OF THE COMPLAINT FILED |
| ANNEXURE P5 | ANNEXURE FILED BY 413/2010. |
5: THE |
TRUE COPY DAUGHTER |
OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT OF THE R1 FILSINA IN OP |
| ANNEXURE P6 | ANNEXURE DT.22-6-1 |
6: 3 J |
TRUE COPY UVENILE BO |
OF THE ORDER IN CC/2014 ARD, MALAPPURAM. |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings for offences under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act should be quashed when the alleged victim previously affirmed she was a major in civil proceedings.
Whether the substratum of the prosecution case is shattered by an estoppel arising from the victim's own counter-statement.
Whether continuance of the proceedings constitutes an abuse of the process of the court.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
JAMSHEED, S/O.MUHAMMED
PUVATHIKKAL KADEEJA W/O.MUHAMMED
KARUTHARTHODI ABDURAHIMAN, S/O.HAMZA
PUVATHIKKAL JASEELA, W/O.ABDURAHIMAN
PALLIPETTA EANU, S/O.THAREEKUTTY
PUVATHIKKAL SUHARA, W/O.EANU
ALEXANDER THOMAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
