Prakasan C.K. @ Prakash K.C vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 12023 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

     FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 26TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                       Crl.MC.No.5879 OF 2020(D)

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 620/2019 OF ADDITIONAL     SESSIONS
                    COURT (POCSO), ERNAKULAM

    CRIME NO.826/2016 OF HILL PALACE POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
                             DISTRICT


PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

                PRAKASAN C.K. @ PRAKASH K.C
                AGED 39 YEARS,C/O. CHELLAPPAN
                KOLLAMPARAMBIL VEEDU, MULAKKULAM, VAIKOM

                BY ADV. SRI.P.SATHISAN

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         STATE OF KERALA
                REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
                KERALA, HIGH COURT P.O, ERNAKULAM 682 031

      2         XX
                AGED XXXX, D/O. XXXXXX, RESIDING AT XXXXX

      3         XX
                AGED XXXX, D/O. XXXXXX, RESIDING AT XXXXX

                R2-3 BY ADV. DONA AUGUSTINE

OTHER PRESENT:

                SR.PP - SRI. RAMESH CHAND

     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.MC.No.5879 OF 2020(D)           2




                              ORDER

Dated this the 16th day of April 2021

The petitioner is the accused in SC No.620/2019 on the file

of the Additional Sessions Court (POCSO), Ernakulam for having

allegedly committed the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 8 of

the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

2. The de facto complainants are the 2 nd and 3rd

respondents herein, who have appeared through Adv.Dona Augustine

and have filed an affidavit as Annexures A4 and A5 stating that the

matter has been amicably settled and that they have no existing

grievance against the petitioner. The offences alleged are purely

personal in nature and no serious prejudice will be caused to the

public if the settlement is recognised. Further, possibility of the case

ending in conviction is also very remote, if not impossible due to the

said settlement. Recognising the said settlement augurs better in the

interests of all.

3. Reliance can be placed on the decisions in Gian Singh

v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108], Narinder Singh and

Others v. State of Punjab and Another [(2014) 6 SCC 466)] and

Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand [(2014) 9 SCC

653] for recognizing the settlement entered into by the parties.

4. In view of the settlement arrived at between the

petitioners and the 2nd and 3rd respondents, the petitioner is entitled

to get the proceedings quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. It is

also pertinent to note that the petitioner does not have any criminal

antecedents and no public interest is involved.

In the result, the Crl.M.C. is allowed and the entire

proceedings against the petitioner in S.C.No.620/2019 before the

Addil. Sessions Court (POCSO), Ernakulam stands quashed under

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

JUDGE jm/-

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR NO. 0826 OF 2016 OF 2016 OF HILL PALACE DATED 03-05-2016

ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT DATED 02-06-

ANNEXURE A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF DEPOSITION OF WITNESS DATED 29-07-2016

ANNEXURE A4 ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 3-12-2020

ANNEXURE A5 ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 03-12-2020