Allowed

Jino Thomas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Nov 2021Crl.MC/1695/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court case allowed a petition to quash criminal proceedings under Section 376(2)(n) IPC for rape alleged on a false promise of marriage. The court quashed the case because the accused married the victim, they are living together as husband and wife with a child, and the parties had settled the issues amicably.

What did the court decide?

The entire further proceedings against the petitioner in S.C. No. 84/2020 on the file of the Fast Track Special Court, Alappuzha are quashed.

Jino Thomas 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 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 19TH KARTHIKA, 1943

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 1695 OF 2021

¶6

IN CONNECTION WITH S.C.NO. 84/2020 PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE FAST

¶7

TRACK SPECIAL COURT, HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

JINO THOMAS AGED 23 YEARS S/O. THOMAS, KANNIKKATTE VEEDU, KUPPADI, WAYANAD.

¶10

BY ADVS. K.SASIKUMAR SRI.S.ARAVIND

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI - 31.

¶13

2 XXX

¶14

BY ADV SRI.NINU M.DAS

¶15

PP SANGEETHARAJ. N.R

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Crl.M.C. NO. 1695 OF 2021

¶18

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This Crl.M.C has been filed seeking to quash the entire further proceedings against the petitioner in S.C. No. 84/2020 on the file of

¶21

the Fast Track Special Court, Alappuzha. Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No. 730/2019 of Nooranad Police Station, which has been registered for the offence punishable under Section 376(2) (n) of IPC.

¶22

The prosecution case is that on promise to marry the 2^nd respondent the petitioner committed rape upon her at different places. The crime has been registered upon the statement given by the 2^nd respondent. Affidavit A1 is the copy of the final report. Finally their marriage was solemnized on 19.08.2019. Annexure A2 is the copy of the marriage certificate between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. The petitioner and the defacto complainant are now living together as husband and wife and a child is born out from that wedlock.

¶23

Annexure A3 is the affidavit duly sworn in by the defacto complainant. The learned counsel would contented that the entire issues between the parties have been amicably settled out. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent

¶24

Crl.M.C. NO. 1695 OF 2021

¶25

¶26

are in deep love and the petitioner had promised to marry her also. The promise made by the petitioner is also proved to have been fulfilled by the subsequent marriage between the parties.

¶27

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.

¶28

Adv. Minu M. Das appeared on behalf of the defacto complainant and reports about the settlement arrived at between the parties. The learned Public Prosecutor produced report of the Inspector Station House Officer, Nooranad police station and the signed statement of the defacto complainant stating that they have married and presently living together as husband and wife. She has no further grievance

¶29

Crl.M.C. NO. 1695 OF 2021

¶30

¶31

against the petitioner.

¶32

Though the crime has been registered under Section 376(2) (n) alleging that accused committed rape upon the defacto complainant on a false promise of marriage, subsequently it has been proved that he has married the defacto complainant and hence, allegation of false promise does not survive. The parties are also living together as husband and wife and a child also born out from that wedlock. Hence for doing complete justice to the parties, I am inclined to allow this petition.

¶33

In the result, Crl.M.C allowed. The entire further proceedings against the petitioner in S.C. No. 84/2020 on the file of the Fast Track Special Court, Alappuzha is hereby quashed.

Sd/-

M.R.ANITHA JUDGE

rps/

Crl.M.C. NO. 1695 OF 2021

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1695/2021

¶40

PETITIONER ANNEXURE

¶41

ANNEXURE A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN FIR NO.730/2019 OF NOORANAD POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA. ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE NO.18/2019 ISSUED BY THE MARRIAGE OFFICER, NOORANAD. ANNEXURE A3 AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 5.3.2021. ANNEXURE A4: A TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE CASE STATUS REPORT DATED 17/03/2021 IN SC.NO.84/2020 PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT, HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA.

Jino Thomas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jino Thomas 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

Rekha Najeesh @ Rekha, Vs State of Kerala

Neethu Treesa Jacob @ Neethu Vs Tom Puthenkalam Xavier

Arun Vs the State of Kerala

Mohammed Shan Vs State of Kerala

Shyam C. Vs State of Kerala

Sharan, Vs State of Kerala