Allowed

Muhammed Ali v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Nov 2021Crl.MC/2014/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Order quashing proceedings against the accused in a kidnapping and child trafficking case after both parties entered into a subsequent registered marriage and are living together peacefully, citing precedent regarding settlement and substantial justice.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; all further proceedings against the petitioner in S.C. No.1935/2014 arising from Crime No.616/2014 are quashed.

Muhammed Ali 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

FRIDAY, THE 26^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 2014 OF 2019

¶6

(FOR QUASHING THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.616/2014 OF THUMBA

¶7

POLICE STATION)

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

MUHAMMED ALI AGED 28 YEARS S/O.ABDUL RAHIM, RESIDING NEAR JIUMARI BADA MASJID, SAADARI DESOM, JIU MARI TALUK, NAGAON DISTRICT, ASSAM782125.

¶10

BY ADV A.S.SHAMMY RAJ

¶11

RESPONDENTS/STATE & VICTIM:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. 2 MAFRUJA BEGUM AGED 20 YEARS D/O.ANJUMA KHAANAM, RESIDING NEAR JIUMARI BADA MASJID, CHAPARI.P.O., RUPAHI, SAADARI DESOM, JOMARI TALUK, NAGAON DISTRICT, ASSAM-782125.

¶13

BY ADV K.RAJESH KANNAN

¶14

PP RENJIT GEORGE,SR GP

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶16

26.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Crl.M.C. No.2014 of 2019

¶18

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Dated this the 26^th day of November, 2021

¶21

This Crl.M.C. has been filed seeking to quash all further proceedings against the petitioner in S.C. No.1935/2014 on the file of Additional Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, which arise out of Crime No.616/2014 of Thumba Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366A of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of POCSO Act, 2012.

¶22

Petitioner is the sole accused in the above crime.

¶23

The prosecution allegation is that 30.6.2014 at about 5 p.m.,the accused induced and kidnapped the minor daughter of the defacto complainant from his residence near Jiumari Bada Masjid, Jiumari Taluk, Nagaon district at Assam State and taken to Gayathribhavan near Station Kadavu Junction, Pallithura, Thiruvananthapuram, where the accused resides. Thereby, accused committed the offence aforementioned.

¶24

According to the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner married the victim girl and subsequently marriage was registered on 20.2.2020. Annexure-A3 is the marriage certificate issued from Registrar of Muslim Marriage, at Nagaon, Assam, dated on 24.3.2020.

¶25

Crl.M.C. No.2014 of 2019

¶26

¶27

Adv.Rajesh Kannan, appeared on behalf of the defacto complainant and submitted that the marriage between the petitioner and the victim solemnised and now they are living peacefully in Assam.

¶28

Annexure A1 is the certified copy of the Final report. Annexure A2 is the affidavit duly sworn in by the victim, in which she has categorically stated that on her own will that she went along with the petitioner and they have been residing together.

¶29

The learned Public Prosecutor produced statement of the Inspector of Police, Thumba Police Station. From the report of SHO and also from the statement of the victim as well as from the affidavit it is revealed that the petitioner and victim are married and are living together and she don’t want to proceed with the case. The marriage certificate produced from the side of the petitioner would show that their marriage was registered on 20.2.2020 after she attained majority.

¶30

So, it is come out that the petitioner and the victim girl are married and living together peacefully.

¶31

In Ashiq v. State of Kerala [2019(2) KLT 1130], this Court had occasion to consider an identical situation and held that when parties have amicably settled the matter and the petitioner

¶32

Crl.M.C. No.2014 of 2019

¶33

¶34

married the victim girl, for the ends of substantial justice, it will be necessary to quash the proceedings.

¶35

It is also relevant in this context to quote judgment in Crl.A.No.1740/2019 [ Saju P.R. v. State of Kerala ] wherein the Apex Court while considering an identical situation of a case involving Section 376 of IPC has held that on the basis of affidavit filed by the complainant and other materials on record, it would be proper to quash the criminal proceedings pending against the accused for doing complete justice to the parties concerned and accordingly, a Crl.M.C. which was dismissed by this Court on the ground that offence involved is one under Section 376 of IPC was ultimately allowed by the Apex Court.

¶36

A learned Single Judge of this Court in Denu P. Thampi v. Ms.X and Another [2019 (3) KHC 199] also had occasion to consider in a situation, where a case involving 376 of IPC, has been quashed in view of the subsequent settlement and marriage between the victim and the accused.

¶37

In the above backdrop, I am of the considered view that the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner will cause grate inconvenience to the family life of the petitioner and the victim. So to do complete justice to the parties, I find it just

¶38

Crl.M.C. No.2014 of 2019

¶39

¶40

and proper to quash entire further proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.616/2014.

¶41

In the result, Crl.M.C. allowed and all further proceedings against the petitioner in S.C. No.1935/2014 on the file of Additional Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, which arise out of Crime No.616/2014 of Thumba Police Station, is hereby quashed.

Sd/-

M.R.ANITHA JUDGE

SMF

Crl.M.C. No.2014 of 2019

¶46

¶47

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2014/2019

¶48