Dismissed

Thomas Shino, v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Jul 2024Crl.Rev.Pet/78/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed two Criminal Revision Petitions challenging an order where the Special Court partially granted discharge. The Court held that the trial court correctly framed charges under sections relating to rape, cheating, and intimidation against the petitioners based on prima facie evidence.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Petitions praying for interference with the impugned order of partial discharge are dismissed; interim stay vacated.

Thomas Shino, Vs the State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1946

¶5

CRL.REV.PET NO.78 OF 2024

¶6

ORDER DATED 08.11.2023 IN CRL.M.P.NO.567 OF 2023 IN SC NO.184 OF 2020 OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT, NORTH PARAVUR.

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/1ST PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:

¶8

THOMAS SHINO, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS THOMAS, RESIDING AT EDAYODIYIL HOUSE, MADUKKA P.O., ERUMELI NORTH, PERUVANTHANAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686513

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI SMT.N.V.SANDHYA SMT.DHANUJA M.S

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682031

¶12

BY SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RENJITH GEORGE

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.07.2024, ALONG WITH CRL.REV.PET.NO.252/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Crl.Rev.Pet.Nos.78 & 252 of 2024 2

¶15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶16

PRESENT

¶17

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

¶18

FRIDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1946 CRL.REV.PET NO. 252 OF 2024

¶19

ORDER DATED 08.11.2023 IN CRL.M.P.NO.567 OF 2023 IN SC NO.184 OF 2020 OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT, NORTH PARAVUR. REVISION PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:

¶20

ROSAMMA THOMAS, AGED 63 YEARS, W/O.THOMAS THOMAS, RESIDING AT EDAYODIYIL HOUSE, MADUKKA P.O., ERUMELI NORTH, PERUVANTHANAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM., PIN - 686513

¶21

BY ADVS.SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI SMT.N.V.SANDHYA

¶22

SMT.DHANUJA M.S

¶23

RESPONDENT:

¶24

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031

¶25

BY SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RENJITH GEORGE

¶26

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.07.2024, ALONG WITH CRL.REV.PET.NO.78/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

Crl.Rev.Pet.Nos.78 & 252 of 2024 3

¶28

ORDER

¶29

Dated this the 19^th day of July , 2024

¶30

Criminal Revision Petition 252/2024 has been filed at the instance of the 2^nd accused in SC No.184/2020 on the files of Special Court for trial of offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, ('POCSO Act' for short hearafter) North Paravur and the petitioner impugns order in Crl.M.P No.567/2023 in SC No.184/2020 dated 08.11.2023 whereby discharge sought by the 2^nd accused alongwith the 1^st accused was partially allowed whereby the 1^st accused was discharged for offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC') and the 2^nd accused was discharged for all other offences except 506 (1)of the IPC.

¶31

Criminal revision Petition 78/2024 is also one filed by the 1^st accused challenging the same order.

¶32

Crl.Rev.Pet.Nos.78 & 252 of 2024 4

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail.

¶34

Perused the order impugned and the relevant materials.

¶35

Coming to the prosecution allegations herein, the same is to the effect that the accused and the victim resided together at the 3^rd floor of T & V Tower Apartment at Ponekkara since January, 2018. While so, the accused forcefully entered into the said apartment and committed rape on the de facto complainant, promising to marry her. Further he procured gold ornaments of Rs.1,75,000/- and cheated the defacto complainant. But thereafter the accused retracted from marriage and assaulted the de facto complainant. On the said facts, crime was registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 376, 420, 406, 323 and 506 (1) read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶36

It is argued by the counsel for the petitioners that the relationship is consensual and no offence would attract in the facts of the case. Therefore, the order impugned is illegal and thus the said order is liable to be interfered.

¶37

Crl.Rev.Pet.Nos.78 & 252 of 2024 5

¶38

But the learned Public Prosecutor fervently opposed quashment sought for on asserting that the allegations are prima facie made out and the matter shall go for trial. In such a case, dismissal of the discharge petition by the Special Judge in part is fully justified. Therefore, no interference is called for the said order.

¶39

On a perusal of the order impugned it is discernible that the learned Special Judge meticulously analysed the matters within the sweep of Section 227 Cr.P.C and found that there are no materials against both accused to frame charge under Section 406 of IPC. Similarly, there are no materials to frame charge against 2^nd accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 420, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC. While holding so, it was found that there are materials to frame charge against the 1^st accused for the offences under Sections 376, 420, 323 and 506 (1) read with Section 34 of IPC and to frame charge against the 2^nd accused for the offences punishable under Section 506 (1) of IPC. On perusal of the order, the same is fully justified, since the prosecution materials prima facie suggest the offences alleged by the

¶40

Crl.Rev.Pet.Nos.78 & 252 of 2024 6

¶41

petitioners, for which discharge was disallowed. Therefore, the dismissal of discharge petition by the Special Judge for the said offences does not require any interference. Accordingly, these petitions stand dismissed.

¶42

Interim stay if any, stands vacated.

¶43

The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Special Judge, North Paravur forthwith for information and to proceed further.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE

¶46

MJL

Thomas Shino, v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thomas Shino, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Jaris E.O. Vs State of Kerala

Bins K.B. Vs the State Transport Appellate Tribunal

Komalavally Vs Syamala

Shahul Vs the Station House Officer

Vijayan Vs State of Kerala

Ramakrishnan Vs Unnikrishnan