Disposed

P.P.Muneer v. Rinshid Marwan

Kerala HC3 Sept 2019Crl.MC/812/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court refused to quash proceedings under S.377 IPC and POCSO Act despite alleged settlement, directing the investigation to be completed within four months before any further review.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings not quashed; investigation directed to be completed within four months.

What the court decided

P.P.Muneer Vs Rinshid Marwan — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 12TH BHADRA, 1941

¶5

CRL.MC.NO.812 OF 2019(B)

¶6

CRIME NO.638/2018 OF MANJERI POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

P.P.MUNEER, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. KUNHIMOIDU HAJI, NANNAMBRA, KUNDOOR DESOM, TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1 RINSHID MARWAN, AGED 17 YEARS, S/O. ABDU SAMAD, RESIDING AT KODITHODIKA (H), ATHANIKKAL, VALLUVAMBRAM P.O., MANCHERRY, MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER AND GAURDIAN ABDU SAMAD, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. AVIRAN HAJI, KODITHODIKA (H), ATHANIKKAL, VALLUVAMBRAM P. O., MANCHERRY, MALAPPURAM - 673 642

¶12

2 STAE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANCHERRY POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

¶13

SRI.P.S.SYAMKUTTAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.T.R.RENJITH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶16

Crl.M.C. No. 812 of 2019

¶17

Dated this the 3^rd day of September, 2019

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The prayer in the above Crl.M.C. is as follows:

¶20

“To quash all proceedings based on Annexure A/1 FIR as against the petitioner in so far as the same arrays the petitioner as accused in Crime No.638/2018 of Mancherry Police Station, Malappuram District for offences alleged under S.377 IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, in the interest of justice.”

¶21

The petitioner has been arrayed as the sole accused in the instant Anx.A1 Crime No.638/2018 of Mancherry Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Sec.377 of the IPC and Secs. 3 & 4 of the POCSO Act, on the basis of FIS given by the 1^st respondent minor victim boy. The petitioner seeks quashment of impugned criminal proceedings. The petitioner would point out that the matter has been fully settled, and that the father of the minor victim boy has sworn to Anx.A2 affidavit that the abovesaid allegations have been made out of misunderstandings, and the parents and the victim boy are not interested to proceed with the matter any further, and that they have no objection for quashment of impugned criminal proceedings.

¶22

Crl.M.C. No. 812 of 2019

¶23

..3..

¶24

It is by now well settled in a series of rulings as in 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], that it may not be right and proper for this Court to exercise its extra ordinary inherent powers conferred under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned proceedings for such grave offences as in Sec.376 of the IPC, on the ground of the settlement between the parties.

¶25

Prima facie , this Court is of the view that since the offence as per Sec.377 of the IPC is to be treated almost in the same level as the one as the offence as per Sec.376 of the IPC, it may not be right and proper to quash the impugned criminal proceedings based on the alleged settlement. That apart, the investigation is at the threshold stage. Moreover, this Court has already passed separate orders today (3.9.2019) in B.A. No. 6112/2019 filed by the petitioner directing that the petitioner should surrender before the Investigating Officer for interrogation purposes, and thereafter his bail is to be considered on the

¶26

..4..

¶27

Crl.M.C. No. 812 of 2019

¶28

same day of his production by the jurisdictional Magistrate Court concerned.

¶29

Therefore, if the investigation is pending, it will not be right and proper for this Court to short circuit the entire process. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the interest of justice would be advanced if the investigation is completed in accordance with law without much delay so that the final report could be filed immediately thereafter. The Investigating Officer will take immediate steps to ensure that the investigation is completed in a time bound manner, and the final report is thereafter immediately filed, without much delay preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Thereafter, in case the petitioner has any legally justiciable grievances as against such final report so filed, then it is for the petitioner to work out the remedies in the manner known to law.

¶30

With these observations and directions, the above Criminal Miscellaneous Case will stand disposed of.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶33

MMG

¶34

Crl.M.C. No. 812 of 2019

¶35

..5..

¶36

APPENDIX

¶37

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶38

ANNEXURE A 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS DATED 15.11.2018 ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 24.01.2019

P.P.Muneer v. Rinshid Marwan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

P.P.Muneer v. Rinshid Marwan

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

Suresh Vs State of Kerala

Biju Mathew Vs the State of Kerala

N.Lathesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Smitha Vs State of Kerala

Rajith P.K. Vs State of Kerala

Binesh Ninan Vs State of Kerala