Allowed

Midhun U.S. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Feb 2020Crl.MC/111/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed the FIR and all further proceedings in a rape case under Section 482 CrPC. Finding the relationship between parties to be consensual prior to a proposed marriage, the Court held the allegations did not make out a case of rape on the face of the materials and allowed the settlement.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Miscellaneous Case was allowed, and the First Information Report and all further proceedings were quashed.

Midhun U.S. Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 17TH MAGHA, 1947

¶5

Crl.MC.No.111 OF 2020(D)

¶6

CRIME NO.2313/2019 OF THAMPANOOR POLICE STATION ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

MIDHUN U.S., AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.SREEKANTAN NAIR, SEVAN, KEERTHI NEST, DHARMALAYAM ROAD, AYURVEDA COLLEGE JUNCTION, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031

¶12

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THAMAPANOOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶13

3 ANJALI S., AGED 27 YEARS, T.C.6/24117(6), CHITTEDATHU PRANAVAM, ELIPODE, VATTIYOORKAVU.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-13

¶14

R3 BY ADV. VIPIN NARAYAN

¶15

SRI.ANJAD ALI SR PP

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

Crl.M.C. No. 111 of 2020

¶19

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶20

Crl.M.C. No.111 of 2020

¶21

Dated this the 6^th day of February, 2020

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

This is a proceedings instituted under Section 482 of

¶24

the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the First Information Report and all further proceedings in Crime No.2313 of 2019 of Thampanoor Police Station.

¶25

The petitioner is the sole accused in the said

¶26

case registered for offences punishable under Sections 376 and

¶27

506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66E and 67A of the Information of Technology Act. The de facto complainant in the case is a lady aged 27 years who had undergone an engagement ceremony to marry the accused on 19.05.2019. The accusation in the case, in essence, is that thereafter on 08.07.2019, the

¶28

Crl.M.C. No. 111 of 2020 3

¶29

accused had sexual intercourse with the de facto complainant. It is also alleged that the accused had taken the video graph of their physical relationship and thereafter, dissuaded her to withdraw from the marriage proposed threatening to publicize the video graph.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

¶31

learned counsel for the de facto complainant as also the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶32

When the case was taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case was lodged by the de facto complainant on a misunderstanding and that she does not want to pursue the case anymore. According to the learned counsel, the continuance of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, in the circumstances, is an abuse of the process of the court. An affidavit filed to that effect by the de facto complainant in this proceedings is also brought to the notice of this court.

¶33

The learned counsel for the de facto complainant

¶34

as also the learned Public Prosecutor affirmed the plea of

¶35

¶36

Crl.M.C. No. 111 of 2020

¶37

settlement.

¶38

It is trite that heinous and serious offences like

¶39

rape cannot be closed based on the settlement arrived at between the parties. At the same time, there cannot be any dispute that a case of this nature can be settled, if the offences are not made out on the face of the materials. The case on hand, therefore, has to be examined in the light of the facts disclosed.

¶40

The statement of the de facto complainant, on

¶41

the basis of which the crime was registered, is part of the records. I have perused the statement meticulously. The materials on record would indicate that the de facto complainant was engaged to the accused on 19.05.2019 and it is thereafter that she had physical relationship with the accused. The materials would also indicate that the de facto complainant and the accused who are persons attained majority had physical relationship between them on the expectation to marry on a future day. Such relationships are consensual and the same would not make out a case of rape.

¶42

Crl.M.C. No. 111 of 2020

¶43

¶44

In the result, the Crl.M.C. is allowed and the First Information Report and all further proceedings thereto in Crime No. 2313 of 2019 of the Thampanoor Police Station are quashed.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

¶47

YKB

¶48

¶49

Crl.M.C. No. 111 of 2020

¶50

APPENDIX

¶51

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶52

ANNEXURE A1

¶53

CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.2313/2019 OF THAMPANOOR POLICE STATION DATED 14.10.2019.

¶54

ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 16.10.2019 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶55

ANNEXURE A3 ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE NOTARY PUBLIC EXPRESSING HER DESIRE AND CONSENT TO WITHDRAW THE PROSECUTION CASE.

¶56

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶57

NIL

¶58

//TRUE COPY//

¶59

PA TO JUDGE

Midhun U.S. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Midhun U.S. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aswathy K. Vs State of Kerala

Nishad K.V. Vs State of Kerala

Bijoy Vs the State of Kerala

Jobin Joseph Vs the State of Kerala

Binu Vs the State of Kerala

Sreejish Vs Victim