Allowed

Maheen v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Sept 2023Crl.MC/1732/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by accused petitioners challenging proceedings in a POCSO case. The judge deemed the trial unnecessary as the parties had settled the issues and the complainant withdrew consent. Applying precedent, the judge quashed the proceedings on the grounds of settlement and lack of public interest.

What did the court decide?

The Crl.M.C. is allowed and all further proceedings in S.C. No.3017/2022 on the file of the Additional District and Session Court (POCSO), Thiruvananthapuram stands quashed as against the petitioners.

Maheen Vs State of Kerala — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 24TH BHADRA,

¶5

¶6

CRL.MC NO. 1732 OF 2023

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT SC 3017/2022 OF ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT (ATROCITIES & SEXUAL
VIOLENCE AG

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2:

¶9

1MAHEEN
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O MUHAMMED ISMAIL,
RESIDING AT DARUL HIDAYATHIL, PUNNAKULAM,
VENKULAM DESOM, EDAVANA, THIRUVANNATHAPURAM,
PIN – 676 541.

¶10

2 ROSI AGED 40 YEARS

¶11

W/O MAHEEN, RESIDING AT DARUL HIDAYATHIL,
PUNNAKULAM, VENKULAM DESOM, EDAVANA,
THIRUVANNATHAPURAM, PIN – 676 541.

¶12

BY ADVS.

¶13

VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN
B.ANUSREE
RESHMA UNNIKRISHNAN
MIRAL K.JOY

¶14

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT’S MOTHER:

¶15

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031.

¶16

2THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
AYIROOR, POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.,
PIN – 695 310.

¶17

3 XXXXXXX

¶18

Crl.M.C. No.1732 of 2023

¶19

: 2 :

¶20

BY ADVS.

¶21

SMT. SREEJA V -PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ASWIN NANDA A.
BIJU M.(K/752/2005)

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 15.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

Crl.M.C. No.1732 of 2023

¶24

: 3 :

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Dated this the 15^th day of September, 2023

¶27

The petitioners are the accused in Crime

¶28

No.894/2022 of Ayiroor Police Station

¶29

Thiruvananthapuram District, which is now pending as S.C. No.3017/2022 on the file of the Additional District and Session Court (POCSO), Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioners face allegations of having committed offences under Section 294(b) and Section 354 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 11 (i) and 12 of the POCSO Act.

¶30

The prosecution allegation is that on 01.11.2022 at about 2 p.m. the petitioners went to the school where the defacto complainant’s daughter is studying and uttered obscene words against her, thereby causing mental agony to her and thereby committed the offences alleged against them.

¶31

Crl.M.C. No.1732 of 2023

¶32

: 4 :

¶33

The learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that the entire issues between the petitioners and the defacto complainant have been settled and the defacto complainant does not wish to continue the prosecution against the petitioners.

¶34

The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel appearing for the defacto complainant do not dispute the fact that the matters have been settled and the defacto complainant does not wish to continue the prosecution.

¶35

Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel appearing for the defacto complainant and having considered the nature of the allegation and facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the proceedings against the petitioners can be quashed on the ground of settlement. No public interest will be served by continuing with the proceedings against the petitioners. Keeping in mind the principles laid down in

¶36

Crl.M.C. No.1732 of 2023

¶37

: 5 :

¶38

Gian Singh v. State of Punjab; (2012) 10 SCC 303 and State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan; (2019) 5 SCC 688 , I am of the view that the proceedings against the petitioners can be quashed on the ground of settlement.

¶39

Accordingly, Crl.M.C is allowed and all further proceedings in S.C No.3017/2022 on the file of the Additional District and Session Court (POCSO), Thiruvananthapuram stands quashed as against the petitioners.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE

AMR

Crl.M.C. No.1732 of 2023

¶45

: 6 :

¶46

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC No.1732/2023

¶47

PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES

¶48

Annexure-ICERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
No.894/2022 DATED 01.11.2022 OF
AYIROOR POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶49

Annexure-IICERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME NO.894/2022 DATED 01.11.2022 OF
AYIROOR POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶50

Annexure-IIITRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 13.10.2022.

Maheen v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maheen 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

Sarath.S., Vs State of Kerala

K. Hemambika Vs P K Unni

Vinil Chacko, Vs State of Kerala

John Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh Babu Vs State of Kerala

Malik Jalal Vs State of Kerala