Allowed

Sajila v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Nov 2022Crl.MC/1337/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by an accused to quash criminal proceedings for attempting to abduct a minor. The Court held that persuading the minor for a job was only preparation, not an attempt under the applicable IPC sections.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings in S.C.No. 377/2016 on the files of Sessions Court (Children's Court), Alappuzha were quashed.

Sajila Vs the State of Kerala — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 23^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022/2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 1337 OF 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC.NO.377/2016 OF SESSIONS COURT (CHILDREN'S COURT), ALAPPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

SAJILA AGED 26 YEARS, D/O.ALIYARKUNJU, MARATHOLIL HOUSE, CHERUTHANA, HARIPPAD.

¶9

BY ADV SRI.B.PRAMOD

¶10

RESPONDENTS/ STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶11

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

¶12

2 SARITHA W/O.SATHESAN, CHANTHU NIVAS, ABAPARAMBU, CHERUTHANA, HARIPPAD – 688 524

¶13

3 SRUTHI D/O.SARITHA, CHANTHU NIVAS, ABAPARAMBU,CHERUTHANA, HARIPPAD – 688 524

¶14

SMT T V NEEMA -SR PP

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Crl.M.C.No. 1337 of 2018

¶17

..2..

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Dated this the 23^rd day of November, 2022

¶20

This Crl.M.C. has been filed to quash all further proceedings in S.C.No.377/2016 on the files of Sessions Court (Children's Court), Alappuzha (for short, the ‘court below’).

¶21

The petitioner is the accused. The 3^rd respondent is the victim. The 2^nd respondent is the mother of the victim. The offence alleged is punishable under Section 511 of 363 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

The prosecution case in short is that, the petitioner

¶23

tried to persuade the 3^rd respondent, daughter of the 2^nd respondent to go to Delhi, by offering a job there.

¶24

I have heard Sri.B.Pramod, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. T.V.Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Even though, notice has been served on 2^nd and 3^rd respondents, there is no appearance.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, even if the entire prosecution case is believed in its

¶26

..3..

¶27

Crl.M.C.No. 1337 of 2018

¶28

entirety, no offence under Section 511 of 363 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. Relying on the decision of the Apex court in Koppula Venkat Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2004 KHC 755] , the learned counsel submitted that at best, the act of the petitioner would amount to preparation to commit the offence and not an attempt to commit the offence falling under Section 511 of 363 of IPC.

¶29

The crime was registered suo motu by the police. The statement of the victim has been recorded. I went through the statement. It would show that the petitioner was aged 19 years and the victim was aged 14 years at the time of the alleged incident. They were friends studying in the same school. The allegation is that, the petitioner offered the victim a job in Delhi and tried to persuade the victim to accompany her. She also told the victim that she shall not disclose this fact to her parents. However, the fact remains that the victim did not go with the petitioner upon such a persuasion. The plan of the petitioner to go to Delhi with the 3^rd respondent in search of an employment cannot be said to be with any bad intention,

¶30

..4..

¶31

Crl.M.C.No. 1337 of 2018

¶32

especially when it is considered in the light of poor financial background of the parties. The Apex court in Koppula Venkat Rao (supra) made a distinction between attempt and preparation to commit an offence. It was held that an attempt to commit a crime is to be distinguished from an intention to commit it and from preparation made for its commission. It was further held that, preparation consists in devising or arranging the means or measures necessary for the offence. It differs widely from attempt which is the direct movement towards the commission after preparations are made. As stated already, the petitioner only persuaded the victim to accompany her to Delhi in search for a job. The said act, at best, can be said to be a preparation. Preparation to commit an offence is punishable only when the preparation is to commit offence under Sections 122 and 399 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶33

For the reasons stated abo ve, I am of the view that the ingredients of Section 511 of 363 are not made out. Hence, no useful purpose will be served in proceeding further with the

¶34

Crl.M.C.No. 1337 of 2018

¶35

..5..

¶36

matter. Accor dingly, all further proceedings in S.C.No. 377/2016 on the files of Sessions Court (Children's Court), Alappuzha is hereby quashed. The Crl.M.C. is allowed.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE

¶39

APA

¶40

Crl.M.C.No. 1337 of 2018

¶41

..6..

¶42

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1337/2018

¶43

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES

¶44

ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.186/2010 OF HARIPPAD POLICE STATION.

Sajila v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajila v. the 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

Xxx Vs the State of Kerala

Tino Thankachan Vs State of Kerala

K.C.Mohammed Khaleel Vs the State of Kerala

Divakaran Vs the State of Kerala

P.D.Anilkumar Vs the State of Kerala

Hashim Vs State of Kerala