Allowed

Xxxxx v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Dec 2022Crl.MC/5113/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed further proceedings against the petitioner in a case alleging violation of Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act. The court found the petitioner lacked control over the child and the alleged injury did not cause unnecessary suffering, supported by the juvenile's acquittal of co-accused.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings in the FIR against the petitioner are quashed; the Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed.

Xxxxx Vs 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

MONDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 5113 OF 2021

¶6

AGAINST THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.104/2019 OF NATTUKAL

¶7

POLICESTATION, PALKKAD DISTRICT

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

XXXXX X BY ADV T.K.SANDEEP

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

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

¶12

2 YYYYYYYY YYYYYYYY BY ADV SWETHA R.

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SRI SANGEETHA RAJ-PP

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Crl.M.C.No.5113 of 2021

¶17

: 2 : -

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Dated this 5^th December, 2022

¶20

This Crl.M.C has been filed to quash all further proceedings in Annexure-II final report in crime No.104/2019 of Nattukal Police Station, Palakkad District.

¶21

The petitioner is the 2^nd accused. The 2^nd respondent is the victim. The offences alleged are punishable under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short 'J. J. Act').

¶22

The 1^st accused is the mother of the victim/2^nd respondent. The 2^nd accused (petitioner) and 3^rd accused are brothers of the 1^st accused. The 3^rd accused was a juvenile at the time of the alleged incident.

¶23

Admittedly, the parents of the victim were not in good terms and they were residing separately. Matrimonial dispute was pending between them. The victim was residing along with the petitioner and the remaining accused at the parental house of the 1^st accused. The prosecution allegation in short is that, on 09.05.2019 at

¶24

Crl.M.C.No.5113 of 2021 - : 3 : -

¶25

about 04.00 pm and also on previous days, the 1^st accused beat the victim with a mobile charger and the petitioner/2^nd

¶26

accused, hit on his chest with his finger, and thereby committed the offence.

¶27

The case against the 3^rd accused was tried before the Juvenile Justice Board, Palakkad as S.T.No.8/2020 and he was acquitted as per the judgment dated 07.10.2022.

¶28

I have heard Sri.Sandeep.T.K, the learned counsel

¶29

for the petitioner, Smt. Swetha.R, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent as well as the Sri.Sangeetha Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the entire allegations in the FIS together with the materials collected in the investigation are believed in its entirety, no offence under Section 75 of the J.J.Act is made out. The learned counsel further relying on the judgment of the Juvenile Justice Board, Palakkad in S.T.No.8/2020, submitted that the 3^rd accused was already acquitted, finding that the case projected by the prosecution is false.

¶31

Crl.M.C.No.5113 of 2021 - : 4 : -

¶32

I went through the FIS. The main allegations are against the 1^st accused. The only allegation against the petitioner is that, one day he beat on the chest of the victim with his finger. In order to attract Section 75 of the J.J.Act, the accused should be in actual charge of, or control over the child, and he should further assault, abandon, abuse or wilfully neglect the child in a manner likely to cause it child unnecessary mental or physical suffering. The case of the prosecution is that the 1^st accused who is the mother of the victim, is having actual control over the child. There is no case that the petitioner is having any control over the child. That apart, there is no case for the prosecution that, the alleged hurt was inflicted by the petitioner in a manner likely to cause the victim unnecessary mental or physical suffering. Thus, the ingredients of Section 75 of the J.J.Act are not attracted against the petitioner.

¶33

The materials on record would show that the 1^st accused is not in good terms with the father of the victim. The victim gave evidence in S.T.No.8/2020. He specifically

¶34

Crl.M.C.No.5113 of 2021 - : 5 : -

¶35

deposed that the incident as narrated in the FIS has not taken place. He further stated that his father told him that, if he gives a complaint against his mother and her brothers, he would take him to foreign country. He also stated that, no injury was inflicted on him by the accused. He added that the injury on his body was caused due to falling down on the ground.

¶36

Considering all the above aspects, I am of the view that no purpose will be served in proceeding further against the petitioner. Accordingly, all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-II final report in Crime No.104/2019 of Nattukal Police Station, Palakkad, against the petitioner hereby stand quashed. The Criminal M.C. is allowed.

¶37

Sd/- KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE.

¶38

¶39

Crl.M.C.No.5113 of 2021 - : 6 : -

¶40

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5113/2021

¶41

PETITIONER ANNE	XURES
Annexure I	CERTIFIED	COPY OF	THE FIR IN CRIME
	NO.104/20	19 OF NAT	TUKAL POLICE STATION,
	PALAKKAD	DISTRICT	DATED 14.5.2019.
Annexure II	CERTIFIED	COPY OF	THE FINAL REPORT DATED
	24.8.2019	IN CRIME	NO.104/2019 OF
	NATTUKAL DISTRICT.	POLICE ST	ATION, PALAKKAD
Annexure III	CERTIFIED	COPY OF	THE DEPOSITION OF THE
	VICTIM BO	Y IN S.T.	NO.8/2020 BEFORE
	JUVENILE	JUSTICE B	OARD DATED 26.6.2020.

Xxxxx v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Xxxxx 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Xxxx Vs 1. State of Kerala

Xxxx Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh Vs the Station House Officer

Unnikrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Raju, Vs State