Allowed

Aboobacker.a.C v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Sept 2019Crl.MC/5979/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala exercised its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings initiated for offences under the POCSO Act and IPC 354(b). The court found that all disputes were resolved between the accused and the complainants, rendering further prosecution unnecessary and wasteful in the absence of a subsisting dispute.

What did the court decide?

The impugned Final Report in Crime No.688/2016 and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against the accused are quashed.

Aboobacker.a.C Vs State of Kerala — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 27TH BHADRA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No.5979 OF 2019(F)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 15/2017 OF SPECIAL COURT UNDER POCSO ACT, KASARAGOD

¶7

CRIME NO.688/2016 OF Chandera Police Station , Kasargod

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

ABOOBACKER.A.C AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. POKKER, “FATHIMA MANZIL”, GANESH MUKK, PADANNA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD-671 315

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SUBHASH

¶11

RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶13

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031

¶14

2 JASEELA O.K. AGED 31 YEARS, W/O. NADEER, RESIDING AT “MUBARAKK HOUSE”, GANESH MUKKU, PADANE VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 315

¶15

3 JURAID O.K. AGED 22 YEARS RESIDING AT “MUBARAKK HOUSE”,GANESH MUKKU, PADANE VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 315

¶16

R2-3 BY ADV. S.ANU

¶17

SMT.PRIYA SHANAVAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1, SMT.S.ANU FOR R2 AND R3

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Crl.MC.No.5979 OF 2019

¶20

¶21

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ========================= Crl.M.C.No.5979 of 2019

¶22

==========================

¶23

Dated this the 18^th day of September, 2019

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The petitioner has been arrayed as the sole accused in the instant Crime No.688/2016 of Chandera Police Station which has been registered for offences punishable under Section 354(b) of the IPC and Sections 9(m) and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual offence Act, 2012. The police after investigation has filed the impugned Anx.AII final report for offences under Section 354 (b) of the IPC and Sections 9 (m) and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual offence Act, 2012 which has now led to the pendency of Sessions Case S.C.No.15/2017 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Kasargod.

¶26

The gist of the allegation is that petitioner/accused is the neighbour of the minor victim girl, who was then aged 9 years and that petitioner had touched her private parts on the day in question, etc. It is now submitted that the entire disputes between the parties have been resolved and 2^nd respondent is the mother of the minor victim girl and 2^nd respondent is the defacto complainant in this crime. The victim

¶27

Crl.MC.No.5979 OF 2019

¶28

¶29

girl’s father has deserted her mother. 3^rd respondent herein is the brother of the 2^nd respondent. Respondents 2 and 3 had separately filed affidavits as per Anxs.A III and A IV stating that the entire disputes between the parties have been resolved and that the allegations were made out of misunderstandings and that they have no subsisting dispute against the petitioner and that they have no objection in quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings in view of the settlement arrived between the parties.

¶30

The learned Prosecutor has earlier asked to get instructions from the Investigating Officer as to the genuineness of the factual aspects stated in Anxs.A III and A IV affidavits. Learned Prosecutor has now submitted on the basis of instructions from the Investigating Officer has conducted an enquiry and statements of respondents 2 and 3 have been taken, stated that they have fully resolved the disputes between the petitioner and that they have no objection in quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings and that the factual averements made by them in Anxs.A III and A IV affidavits are correct, etc.

¶31

In a catena of decisions, the Apex Court has held that, in appropriate cases involving even non-compoundable offences, the High Court can quash prosecution by exercise of the powers under Sec.482 of

¶32

Crl.MC.No.5979 OF 2019

¶33

¶34

the Cr.P.C., if the parties have really settled the whole dispute or if the continuance of the prosecution will not serve any purpose. Here, this Court finds a real case of settlement between the parties and it is also found that continuance of the prosecution in such a situation will not serve any purpose other than wasting the precious time of the court, when the case ultimately comes before the court. On a perusal of the petition and on a close scrutiny of the investigation materials on record and the affidavit of settlement and taking into account the attendant facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court in the cases as in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160 = (2012) 10 SCC 303 and 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.

¶35

Accordingly, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the impugned Anx.AII Final Report in Crime No.688/2016 of Chandera Police Station which has now led to the pendency of Sessions Case S.C.No.15/2017 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Kasargod and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against the

¶36

Crl.MC.No.5979 OF 2019

¶37

¶38

accused will stand quashed.

¶39

The petitioner will produce certified copies of this order to the Investigating Officer concerned and the competent court below concerned. Office of the Advocate General will forward copy of this order to the Investigating Officer concerned, for necessary information.

¶40

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

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS

JUDGE

mpm

Crl.MC.No.5979 OF 2019

¶46

¶47

APPENDIX

¶48

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶49

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO. 688/2016 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶50

ANNEXURE AII CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT.

¶51

ANNEXURE AIII

¶52

TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ENDORSING THE FACTUM OF COMPOUNDING OF THE SAID OFFENCES AND THE SETTLEMENT OF THE DISPUTES.

¶53

ANNEXURE IV

¶54

TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ENDORSING THE FACTUM OF COMPOUNDING OF THE SAID OFFENCES AND THE SETTLEMENT OF THE DISPUTES,

¶55

// TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE

Aboobacker.a.C v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aboobacker.a.C 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

K. Sasidharan, Vs Geetha

Binu Balan.K.C Vs State of Kerala

Vimal M.Nair Vs the State of Kerala

Shajitha Vs State of Kerala

Mansoor Babu Vs the State of Kerala

Joy Joseph Vs the State of Kerala