Allowed

Jijo. K. Shaji @ Thomas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Oct 2023Crl.MC/2634/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allowed a Criminal Miscellaneous petition and quashed proceedings for rape and grievous hurt. The court relied on the complainant's affidavit stating the relationship was consensual, finding the allegations unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's Criminal Misc. No. 2634 of 2023 allowed; further proceedings against petitioner in S.C.No. 628 of 2019 quashed.

Jijo. K. Shaji @ Thomas Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 3RD KARTHIKA, 1945

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 2634 OF 2023

¶6

 S.C.No.628 of 2019 on the file of the Additional District and
Sessions Court-II (Spl.Court), Kottayam
Crime No.1205 of 2018 of Vakathanam Police Station, Kottayam

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED :

¶8

JIJO. K. SHAJI @ THOMAS
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O SHAJI KURIAKOSE,
RESIDING AT KEECHERIL HOUSE,
VAKATHANAM VILLAGE, VAKATHANAM P.O,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686538
BY ADV R.NIKHIL

¶9

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT :

¶10

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-, PIN - 682031
2THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
VAKATHANAM POLICE STATION,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT -686538,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
3XXX

¶11

OTHER PRESENT:

¶12

SRI G.SUDHEER (PP)
SMT.SAJNA JALEEL

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Crl.MC No.2634 of 2023

¶15

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1205 of 2018 of Vakathanam Police Station, Kottayam, alleging commission of offences under Section 375(a) r/w 376(2),(n) and 450 of the Indian Penal Code. The matter is now pending as S.C.No.628 of 2019 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court-II (Spl.Court), Kottayam.

¶18

The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner entered into sexual relationship with the victim/third respondent on a false promise of marriage and thereafter, withdrew from the promise of marriage.

¶19

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner and the victim were in love with each other and any relationship between them was purely consensual. It is submitted that no element of rape was involved. It is submitted that the victim has now executed Annexure-A4 additional affidavit in which, she has clearly stated that any relationship between the petitioner and herself was purely consensual. It is submitted that the victim has now married another person and they are leading a happy married life. It is

¶20

Crl.MC No.2634 of 2023

¶21

¶22

submitted that the continuance of the proceedings will also affect

¶23

the married life of the victim. It is submitted that in such circumstances, it is only proper that this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings against the petitioner as the affidavit of the third respondent indicates that no offence as alleged against the petitioner has been committed by the petitioner.

¶24

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that a statement has been recorded from the third respondent and the third respondent has indicated that she does not wish to prosecute the complaint against the petitioner.

¶25

The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent would submit that the third respondent stands by the statement in Annexure-A4 affidavit filed in this Court and therefore, she has no objection in proceedings being quashed in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶26

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, I am of the view that the statements contained in Annexure-A4 additional affidavit dated 11.10.2023 would indicate that the offences alleged against the

¶27

Crl.MC No.2634 of 2023

¶28

¶29

petitioner may not sustain. I do not intend to extract the contends of Annexure-A4 additional affidavit on account of the statements contained therein. However, it is clear that, if those statements are true, the offences alleged against the petitioner will not sustain.

¶30

Taking into consideration the above facts, I am of the view that the proceedings against the petitioner can be terminated. In taking this view, I am fortified by the law laid down in Shambhu Kharwar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another ; [2022 KHC 6831] and also in Dr.Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra and Others [(2019) 18 SCC 191].

¶31

Therefore, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and all further proceedings against the petitioner in S.C.No.628 of 2019 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court-II (Spl.Court), Kottayam will stand quashed.

¶32

Sd/- GOPINATH P., JUDGE

¶33

rkj

Jijo. K. Shaji @ Thomas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jijo. K. Shaji @ Thomas 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

Vijayakumar @ Biju Vs State of Kerala

Sulatha S, Vs State of Kerala, Represented by the Public Prosecutor

Tomy K.M. Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Latheef Vs State of Kerala

Najaf Vs State of Kerala

Sreevalsan Vs State of Kerala