A Crime Misc. case regarding quashment of an FIR implicating the petitioner in offences including Section 376 IPC and POCSO. The Court relied on Freddy Antony Francis to hold that quashment is permissible in cases of subsequent marriage coupled with a genuine settlement.
The FIR and all further proceedings against the accused in Crime No. 2925/2017 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
MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1941 Crl.MC.No. 752 of 2018
*CRIME NO. 2925/2017 OF Kilikolloor Police Station , Kollam
*CRIME NO. 2925/2017 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM (AS PER ORDER DATED 28.02.2020 IN CRL.MA.1/2020 UB CRL.MC 752/2018)
PETITIONER:
BY ADVS. SRI.PRATHEESH.P SMT.S.SEETHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
2 VAISHNAVI
D/O.VIJAYALAKSHMI, AGED 18 YEARS, THIRUVATHIRA VEEDU, PATTATHANAM, VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE, KOLLAM EAST, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
Crl.MC.No. 752 of 2018
-2-
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1, SRI.A.MUHAMMED RAFFI FOR R2
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 752 of 2018
-3-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
==================
Crl.M.C.No. 752 of 2018
==================
Dated this the 8th day of April, 2019
O R D E R
The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No. 2925 of 2017 of Kollam East Police Station for offence alleged under Section 366A 376 IPC and 3& 4 of the POSCO Act, 2012.
Crl.MC.No. 752 of 2018
majority. Annexure A3 is the certificate of marriage issued by the Competent Marriage Officer under Rule 11(1) of the Kerala Registration Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008 certifies that the petitioner has married the 2nd respondent on 27.12.2017 in a temple. It appears that the incidents occurred on 03.08.2017 and 2nd respondent(whose date of birth 11.11.2017) has subsequently completed the age of majority on 11.11.2017 and that the marriage has been solemnized on 27.02.2017. The 2nd respondent has also filed Annexure (2) affidavit stating that the entire disputes between the parties have been resolved and that this Court may quash the impugned criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement.
Crl.MC.No. 752 of 2018
-5-
investigating officer concerned that the enquires have revealed that the parties are married and that they have arrived at a genuine settlement
Crl.MC.No. 752 of 2018
-6-
that view of the matter, it is ordered that the impugned Annexure 1 FIR in Crime No. 2925/2017 and all further proceedings arising thereof as against the accused would stand quashed. The parties will produce certified copies of the order before the Investigating Officer concerned and before the jurisdictional Court concerned.
With the above observations and directions the Crl.M.C stands finally disposed of .
SD/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS
JUDGE
SJ
Crl.MC.No. 752 of 2018
-7-
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF FIR WITH FIS IN CRIME NO.2925/2017 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE 2 THE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT REGARDING SETTLEMENT DATED 11-01-2018.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C for serious offences involving a girl below 18 when the accused later marries her and a genuine settlement is reached.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Freddy Antony Francis and others V. State of Kerala and anotherRelied on¶36
_(Freddy Antony Francis and others V. State of Kerala and another 2017 KHC 444 = 2018 1 KLT 558)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
ANEESH
STATE OF KERALA
VAISHNAVI
ALEXANDER THOMAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
