Allowed

Sandeep v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Nov 2021Crl.MC/1375/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed criminal proceedings against five accused persons charged with kidnapping, abducting, and raping a minor under IPC and POCSO. The court allowed the criminal miscellaneous case because the accused married the victim after she attained majority, they are living together happily, and the continuation of proceedings would disturb their marital peace.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings against the petitioners in S.C. No.864/2019 arising from Crime No.1042/2017 are quashed.

Sandeep Vs State of Kerala — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 26TH KARTHIKA, 1943

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 1375 OF 2021

¶6

(IN THE MATTER OF S.C.NO.864/2019 IN THE FILES OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT, HARIPAD, ARISING FROM CRIME NO.1042/2017 OF KANAKAKKUNNU, POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT)

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 5:

¶8

1 SANDEEP, AGED 27 YEARS S/O. SATHEESAN, CHEMPAZHANTHI HOUSE, KEERIKKAD THEKKU MURI, KEERIKKAD VILLAGE, KATHIKAPPLLI TALUK, MUTHUKULAM P. O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690 508. 2 VISHAKH, AGED 22 YEARS S/O. PRAKASH, VIJAYAPURAM CHENNELIL COLONY, THEKKEKKARA MURI, PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689 501. 3 VISHNU DEV, AGED 29 YEARS S/O. VASUDHEVAN, VIMAL BHAVANM HOUSE, PATHIYOORKALA MURI, PATHIYOOR VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690 501. 4 AJESH @ RAHUL, AGED 23 YEARS S/O. NAGARAJ, PUNNAKKAL THARAYIL HOUSE, KANNAMPALLI BHAGAM, KEERIKKAD VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690 501.

¶9

Cr.M.C.No.1375 of 2021

¶10

¶11

5 RENJITH, AGED 22 YEARS KAVINTETHARAYIL HOUSE, KANNAMPALLI BHAGAM, KEERIKKAD VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690 501.

¶12

BY ADV M.G.SREEJITH

¶13

RESPONDENTS/STATE, COMPLAINANT & VICTIM:

¶14

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶15

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 031.

¶16

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KANAKAKKUNNU POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690 501.

¶17

3 XXX (VICTIM) X

¶18

BY ADV MERSEENA VINCENT PP SANGEETHARAJ.N.R

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Cr.M.C.No.1375 of 2021

¶21

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Dated this the 17^th day of November, 2021

¶24

This Crl.M.C. has been filed seeking to quash all further proceedings against the petitioners in S.C. No.864/2019 on the files of Fast Track Special Court, Haripad, which arise out of Crime No.1042/2017 of Kanakakkunnu Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 120, 376 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶25

Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 5 in S.C. No.864/2017. It is alleged that, 1^st petitioner kidnapped the 3^rd respondent/defacto complainant when she was a minor, from the custody of guardian and he committed rape and thereby committed the offences under Sections 363, 366, 120, 376 and Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶26

Petitioners 2 to 5 are the friends of the 1^st petitioner. It is alleged that they facilitated for doing the act by the 1^st accused. The mother of the 3^rd respondent died before ten years and her father married another lady and shifted to Kottayam and 3^rd

¶27

Cr.M.C.No.1375 of 2021

¶28

¶29

respondent is also shifted to Kottayam. Due to some difference in opinions with the father, she went to grand mother's house. While, so she fall in love with 1^st petitioner and later with the consent of his parents decided to marry him after attaining majority.

¶30

According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the 1^st petitioner married the defacto complainant on 11.1.2020 on attaining majority and presently they are living together as husband and wife.

¶31

Adv.Merseena Vincent, appeared on behalf of the defacto complainant and reports about the settlement and the marriage between the 1^st petitioner and the defacto complainant.

¶32

The learned Public Prosecutor produced the copy of the report of Inspector of Police, Kanakakkunnu, along with the copy of the statement of the defacto complainant.

¶33

Annexure-A1 is copy of the final report. Annexure-A2 is the copy of the marriage certificate of the petitioner with the defacto complainant. Annexure-A3 is the affidavit duly sworn in by the defacto complainant/3^rd respondent.

¶34

It has come out from the documents produced from the side of the petitioner as well as the report of the SHO and the signed statement of the victim girl that the 1^st petitioner married

¶35

Cr.M.C.No.1375 of 2021

¶36

¶37

the victim girl after she attained majority. Presently they are living together happily.

¶38

9. In Denu P.Thampi v. Ms.X and Another (2019(2) KLT 996 : 2019(3) KHC 199) this Court in an identical situation held that when the victim gave consent for sexual intercourse on the promise made by the accused that he would marry her and when that promise was not fraudulent and the accused married the victim within a short period after the alleged incident, it cannot be said that accused committed rape upon her. It is also held that in such cases, prosecution of accused for committing an offence of rape would be an abuse of process of court and in such cases court would be justified in quashing the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In this case also, the defacto complainant filed complaint alleging that accused committed rape promising to marry her.

¶39

Since, the 1^st petitioner married the victim the 3^rd respondent, now they are living together happily. So, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner would definitely affect their peaceful marital life. The 3^rd respondent has no objection in quashing the proceedings against the petitioners. Hence ends of justice demands quashment of the proceedings

¶40

Cr.M.C.No.1375 of 2021

¶41

¶42

against the petitioners.

¶43

In the result, Crl.M.C. allowed and all further proceedings against the petitioners in S.C. No.864/2019 on the files of Fast Track Special Court, Haripad, arise out of Crime No.1042/2017 of

¶44

Kanakakkunnu Police Station, is here by quashed.

¶45

In the result, Crl.M.C. allowed accordingly.

Sd/M.R.ANITHA

JUDGE

SMF

Cr.M.C.No.1375 of 2021

¶50

¶51

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1375/2021

¶52

PETITIONER ANNEXURE

¶53

ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN S.C.NO.864/2019 IN THE FILES OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT, HARIPAD. ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE DATED 15.01.2020. ANNEXURE 3 AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 01.03.2021.

¶54

//TRUE COPY//

¶55

PA TO JUDGE

Sandeep v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep 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

Velayudhan Nair @ Sasthamangalam Mohanan Vs Dr.B.Sandhya, I.P.S.

Mathew Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Sandeep Vs State of Kerala

Athira Augustine Vs State of Kerala

Manoharan, Vs Sushama

Bijukumar.S.S Vs State of Kerala