Xxx vs Xxx
2021 Latest Caselaw 12094 Ker

Crl.MC.No.5866 OF 2020(C)         1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL

   TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 30TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                      Crl.MC.No.5866 OF 2020(C)

 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 771/2020 OF FIRST ADDITIONAL
              DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR

     CRIME NO.274/2020 OF PUDUKKAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR


PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

             XXX
             AGED XX, XXXX, XXX

             BY ADV. SHRI.ABRAHAM MATHAN

RESPONDENTS/VICTIM/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

      1      XXX


      2      STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC
             PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

      2      THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
             PUDUKKAD POLICE STATION, PUDUKKAD - 680 301,
             THRISSUR DISTRICT.



             PUBLIC PROSECUTOR - SMT. MAYA M.N.

     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.MC.No.5866 OF 2020(C)             2




                                   ORDER

Petitioner is the sole accused in S.C.No.771 of

2020 before the First Additional Sessions Court,

Thrissur in Crime No.274 of 2020 of Pudukkad Police

Station, which was registered on the basis of the

First Information Statement given by the minor

prosecutrix alleging offence punishable under

Sections 376(2)(n), 363, 450 of IPC and 6, 5(j)

(ii)& 5(l) of the Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act,2012.

2. It has also come out that during the

minority of the girl, the victim have given birth

to a child. After investigation, the police laid

the charge sheet and now he is facing trial before

the Special Court for the trial of POCSO Act cases,

the First Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur in

S.C.No.771 of 2020.

3. The petitioner submits that after the

incident, after the girl attained status, the

petitioner married the girl. It is evident from

Annexure-4 certificate of marriage. The victim

girl has also filed an affidavit, Annexure-3,

stating that her marriage with the petitioner was

solemnized on 17.08.2020, that the dispute has been

amicably settled, that she does not want to pursue

the proceedings further.

4. Heard the learned counsel on both sides and

also the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. Eventhough the allegation against the

petitioner is very serious, since the prime

witness, the victim in the case, has been married

by the petitioner, the chance of a successful

prosecution is very bleak. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court has held in numerous cases that when the

parties themselves reach a settlement, the High

Court shall not refuse to exercise its jurisdiction

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In such cases, the court

have to take a pragmatic view of the matter,

notwithstanding the seriousness of the crime. Here

the first respondent/victim is the prime witness in

the case; she is not going to support the

prosecution case; that means proceeding the matter

further would be a futile exercise. Pendency of

the proceedings may also cause disturbances in

their future marital life. In the circumstances,

invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482

Cr.P.C., further proceedings in Annexure -2 Final

Report shall stand quashed.

Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed.

Sd/-

K.HARIPAL

JUDGE msp

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S ANNEXURES:

ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.274 OF 2020 OF PUDUKKAD POLICE STATION DATED 24.03.2020.

ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.274 OF 2020 OF PUDUKKAD POLICE STATION DATED 08.09.2020.

ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 02.12.2020.

ANNEXURE 4 TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER AND FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 03.11.2020.

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES:NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE