This judgment quashed an FIR under caution regarding rape and kidnapping involving a minor. The court applied its discretion under Section 482 Cr.P.C. allowing settlement after the accused and victim married and had a child.
The impugned FIR in Crime No. 531/2015 and all further proceedings against the petitioner are quashed and set aside.
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 03RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1942 CRL.MC.NO.684 OF 2020(E)
CRIME NO.531/2015 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION , ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
JAMSHED SHEIKH, S/O. ANGOOR SHEIKH, MANGALKOTTA, BARDHAMAM, WEST BENGAL
BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH
RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
2 THE SUB INSPECTOR KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-690 572.
5 NAMITHA NAZAR, AGED 21 YEARS, D/O. NAZAR, VADAKKE MARUTHAVANA VEEDU, KRISHNAPURAM PANCHAYATH, WARD 13, THEKKUM KOCHUMURI, KRISHNAPURAM, PIN-690 533.
SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1 & R2
ADV. SRI.V.VINAR FOR R3 TO R5
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
Crl.M.C. No. 684 of 2020
Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2020
O R D E R
The prayer in the above Criminal Miscellaneous Case filed under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. is as follows:
“......quash Annexure-A1-FIR of Crime No.531/2015 of Kayamkulam Police Station.”
..3..
Crl.M.C. No. 684 of 2020
then aged 17 years at the time of registration of FIR and the petitioner was then aged 20 years. The police in the course of investigation found that the 5th respondent lady victim was found in the company of the petitioner and that she had eloped with him as they were having a love affair. According to the police, the petitioner had sexual relationship with the 5th respondent during abovesaid period at the time when she was minor. Accordingly, offences in Anx.A1 FIR was altered to those punishable under Secs.363, 366, 376 & 201 of the IPC and Secs.3 & 4 of the POCSO Act. Later, the 5th respondent lady victim has attained the majority age of 18 years on 30.1.2016. It is now stated by the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for contesting respondents 3 to 5 that, later with the blessings of families of both sides particularly parents, the petitioner accused and the 5th respondent has voluntarily entered into a marital arrangement, and marriage between the petitioner and the 5th respondent was solemnized in accordance with the Muslim personal law on 27.3.2016 as certified by Anx.A2 marriage certificate dated 11.8.2018 issued by the Jama-Ath committee of the area concerned. Further it is stated by the petitioner and contesting respondents that, after the
..4..
Crl.M.C. No. 684 of 2020
solemnization of marriage on 27.3.2016, a child has been born to the 5th respondent in her marital relationship with the petitioner on 12.4.2017 as evident from Anx.A3 birth certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths. It is stated that, the 5th respondent is now aged more than 21 years and further that contesting respondents 3 & 4 (father and mother of the victim) and the 5th respondent lady victim had separately filed affidavits as per Anxs. A4, A5, & A6 respectively on 16.12.2019 stating that the entire disputes between the petitioner and them were resolved and with the blessings of both families, marriage of the 5th respondent with the petitioner has been solemnized as evident from Anx.A2 certificate, and that a child has also been born to her in her marital relationship with the petitioner, and that they have no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings, and that it is better for the welfare of future marital life of the 5th respondent that the impugned criminal proceedings be quashed etc.
Crl.M.C. No. 684 of 2020
..5..
the investigating officer has conducted an enquiry and he had recorded the statements of contesting respondents 3 to 5 and has found that the averments in abovesaid affidavits as per Anxs.A4 to A6 are correct and true, and that the 5th respondent has voluntarily entered into marital relationship with the petitioner and their marriage has been solemnized on 27.3.2016 after the 5th respondent has attained the majority age of 18 years on 30.1.2016, and that a child is also born to them and that the 5th respondent is now leading a happy married life with the petitioner, etc.
..6..
Crl.M.C. No. 684 of 2020
an exception could be made in cases where the accused has subsequently married the lady victim and they have decided to settle all the disputes and for the predominant purpose of welfare of the defacto complainant/victim to ensure her a better marital life, it may be only just and proper for this Court in exercising extra ordinary discretionary inherent powers conferred under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. may quash the impugned criminal proceedings on the basis of such extenuating factors, especially in cases where the accused has committed penetrative sexual assault/rape on a victim/minor victim on the assurance of marriage and where the marriage of accused and victim has been subsequently solemnized.
..7..
Crl.M.C. No. 684 of 2020
and that the marriage has already been solemnized, and that even a child has been born to them in the said wedlock and that they are now living a peaceful marital life and hence it may be only better in the interest of the further marital life of the 5th respondent that the impugned criminal proceedings be quashed or otherwise it could detrimentally affect her further life. In that view of the matter it is ordered that the impugned Anx.A1 FIR in Crime No. 531/2015 of Kayamkulam Police Station, Alappuzha District, and all further proceedings emanating therefrom as against the petitioner accused shall stand quashed and set aside.
With these observations and directions, the above Criminal Miscellaneous Case will stand disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
MMG
Crl.M.C. No. 684 of 2020
..8..
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF FIR OF CRIME NO 531/2015 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY OACHIRA PADINJARE THERUVU MUSLIM JAMA-ATH COMMITTEE ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF NAHAL KHATUN ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
| ANNEXURE A4 | TRUE COPY RESPONDENT |
OF AFFIDAVIT BY THE 3RD |
|---|---|---|
| ANNEXURE A5 | TRUE COPY RESPONDENT |
OF AFFIDAVIT BY THE 4TH |
| ANNEXURE A6 | TRUE COPY RESPONDENT |
OF AFFIDAVIT BY THE 5TH |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether exceptional circumstances of subsequent marriage and settlement justify quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in a rape/FIR case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shimbhu & Anr. v. State of HaryanaReferred¶38
Shimbhu & Anr. v. State of Haryana [(2014) 13 SCC 318] · Who else cites this
Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of GujaratReferred¶38
Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat [ ( 2017) 9 SCC 641] · Who else cites this
Anita Maria Dias v. State of MaharashtraReferred¶38
Anita Maria Dias v. State of Maharashtra [(2018) 3 SCC 290] · Who else cites this
Sebastian @ Solly v. State of KeralaReferred¶38
Sebastian @ Solly v. State of Kerala [2015 (1) KLJ 384, etc.]
Freddy @ Antony Francis & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr.Applied¶38
Freddy @ Antony Francis & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr .[2017 KHC 344 = 2018 (1) KLD 558]
Denu P.Thampi v. Ms.X.Applied¶38
Denu P.Thampi v. Ms.X_, [2019 (3) KHC 199]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
JAMSHED SHEIKH
STATE OF KERALA
SUB INSPECTOR KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION
NAZAR
NAJEEMA
NAMITHA NAZAR
ALEXANDER THOMAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
