Allowed

Nidheesh.S v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Nov 2021Crl.MC/422/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal miscellaneous petition filed to quash proceedings against the appellant based on sexual offence charges. The court allowed the petition, quashing further proceedings after finding the appellant married the victim post-offence, they live together, and a child was born.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in Crime No.1020/2019 registered against the petitioner in Kayamkulam police station were quashed.

Nidheesh.S 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 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 422 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.1020/2019 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

NIDHEESH.S
AGED 22 YEARS
S/O. SURESH, NIDHEESH BHAVAN,
OCHIRA P.O. KOLLAM 690 526,
NOW RESIDING AT PUTHUPALLY,
KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA.
BY ADV RASHEED C.NOORANAD

¶9

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT:

¶10

1STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.

¶11

2 AISWARYA

¶12

D/O. KARTHIKA RAJAN, ANOOP BAHAVN,
NEAR DEVIKULANGARA TEMPLE,
THEKKU KOCHU MURI, PUTHUPALLY VILLAGE,
KAYAMKULAM 690 527.

¶13

BY ADV M.N.ANITHA

¶14

BY ADV.RENJIT GEORGE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

CRL.MC NO. 422 OF 2020

¶17

2

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Crl.M.C.has been filed seeking to quash the further proceedings pending against the petitioner in crime No.1020/2019 of Kayamkulam police station registered under Sections 354(C), 363, 366, 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 read with 8, Section 6 read with 5(l) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 and Section 75 of Juvenile Justice and Section 66(E) of Information Technology Act, 2000.

¶20

Petitioner is the sole accused in the above crime. The second respondent is the defacto complainant and presently she is the wife of the petitioner. The case was registered on the basis of the statement given by the defacto complainant, who was a minor at the time of occurrence.

¶21

The prosecution case is that on 21.10.2016, the petitioner sexually abused the defacto complainant in his house. The allegation is that under the promise to marry the defacto complainant, on that day he taken her to various places including Valiyazheekkal beach, etc and thereafter committed rape upon her on 17.09.2017.

¶22

Annexure-I is the copy of the FIR. After she attained

¶23

CRL.MC NO. 422 OF 2020

¶24

3

¶25

majority, the petitioner married her and Annexure-II is the copy of the marriage certificate of the petitioner and the defacto complainant, which would prove that they got married on 16.10.2019.

¶26

Adv. M.N.Anitha appeared on behalf of the defacto complainant and she supports the averments in the petition and submitted that now the defacto complainant is living with the petitioner and a child is also born in their wedlock.

¶27

Annexure-III is the affidavit duly sworn in by the defacto complainant wherein she categorically stated about the solemnisation of marriage as well as the birth of the child.

¶28

The learned Public Prosecutor filed report of the SHO along with copy of the signed statement of the victim.

¶29

It is relevant to quote Ashiq v. State of Kerala [2019(2) KLT 1130], wherein this Court had an occasion to consider an identical situation and held that when parties have amicably settled the matter and the petitioner married the victim girl, for the ends of substantial justice, it will be necessary to quash the proceedings.

¶30

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

¶31

¶32

CRL.MC NO. 422 OF 2020

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

It has come out that the petitioner married the defacto complainant subsequent to the registration of the crime and presently they are living together as husband and wife and a child is also born out of their wedlock. So continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would definitely affect their peaceful marital life. Hence, I am of the view that it would be just and proper for doing complete justice to the parties to quash the entire proceedings pending against the petitioner in crime

¶36

CRL.MC NO. 422 OF 2020

¶37

5

¶38

No.1020/2019 of Kayamkulam police station

¶39

In the result, this Crl.M.C. stands allowed and the further proceedings in crime No.1020/2019 of Kayamkulam police station against the petitioner is hereby quashed.

Sd/-

M.R.ANITHA

JUDGE

nkr

¶44

CRL.MC NO. 422 OF 2020

¶45

¶46

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 422/2020

¶47

PETITIONER ANNEXURE
ANNEXURE ITRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 1020/2019
OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA
DISTRICT DATED 04/04/2019.

¶48

ANNEXURE IIA TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY THE KARTHIKAPPILLY GRAMA
PANCAHAYATH DATED 26.10.2019.
ANNEXURE IIIA TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED
27/10/2019 SIGNED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
/DEFACTO COMPLAINT.

Nidheesh.S v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nidheesh.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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Razeena Ali, Vs Jubeesh

Albijin Vs State of Kerala

Razeena Ali, Vs Jubeesh

Radhesh V.V. Vs Anupama Gopi

Anwar Vs State of Kerala

Farook Vs State of Kerala