Aaa vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 23879 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA
     SATURDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943
                         CRL.MC NO. 5929 OF 2020
 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 590/2017 OF SPECIAL COURT UNDER POCSO
                                ACT, IDUKKI
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

            AAA
            XX
            BY ADVS.
            BABU S. NAIR
            SMT.SHAMSEERA. C.ASHRAF


RESPONDENTS/STATE & VICTIM:

     1      THE STATE OF KERALA,
            REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
            HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
            ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031.

     2      THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
            KALIYAR POLICE STATION,
            IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685607.

     3      XXX
            VICTIM.

            BY ADV R.B.RAJESH
            BY ADV. SANGEETHARAJ N.R, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR


     THIS   CRIMINAL   MISC.   CASE   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
04.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 1CRL.MC NO. 5929 OF 2020
                                 2


                             ORDER

This Crl.M.C. has been filed seeking to quash the entire

further proceedings against the petitioner in S.C.No. 590/2017 on

the file of the First Additional District and Sessions Court,

Thodupuzha, which arose out of crime No.417/2015 of Kaliyar

Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Sections

420 & 376 IPC and Section 3(i)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (In short

'SC/ST POA Act') and Section 4 and 5 read with Section 6 of

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

2. The prosecution allegation is that on 10.09.2015 the

third respondent/ defacto complainant fall in love with the

petitioner, offering to marry her, he obtained 3.5 sovereigns of

gold ornaments and Rs.3,00,000/- on different occasions from the

defacto complainant and forced the defacto complainant to have

sexual intercourse with him and thereby committed the offence

aforementioned.

3. Adv.R.B.Rajesh appeared on behalf of the defacto

complainant and reports about the settlement arrived at between

the parties.

1CRL.MC NO. 5929 OF 2020

4. The learned Public Prosecutor produced copy of the

report of the Sub Inspector of Police, Kaliyar police station along

with copy of the signed statement of the defacto complainant.

5. According to the petitioner, the complaint was given in

the year 2015 and subsequently, the petitioner married the

defacto complainant and presently they are living peacefully. The

marriage certificate of the petitioner and defacto complainant has

been produced as Annexure B. The marriage between the

petitioner and the defacto complainant was solemnized on

16.12.2015. Annexure A is the certified copy of the final report.

Annexure C is the affidavit duly sworn in by the defacto

complainant.

6. The affidavit duly sworn in by the defacto complainant

as well as in the statement given to the SHO, she specifically

stated about the marriage with the petitioner and presently they

are living together as husband and wife with their children and she

has no surviving grievance against the petitioner and she has no

objection in quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.

7. In this context, it is relevant to quote the decision in

Ashiq v. State of Kerala [2019(2) KLT 1130], wherein this Court 1CRL.MC NO. 5929 OF 2020

had an occasion to consider an identical situation and held that

when parties have amicably settled the matter and the petitioner

married the victim girl, for the ends of substantial justice, it will be

necessary to quash the proceedings.

8. It is also relevant in this context to quote judgment in

Crl.A.No.1740/2019 [Saju P.R. v. State of Kerala] wherein the

Apex Court while considering an identical situation of a case

involving Section 376 of IPC has held that on the basis of affidavit

filed by the complainant and other materials on record, it would be

proper to quash the criminal proceedings pending against the

accused for doing complete justice to the parties concerned and

accordingly, a Crl.M.C. which was dismissed by this Court on the

ground that offence involved is one under Section 376 of IPC was

ultimately allowed by the Apex Court.

9. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Denu P. Thampi

v. Ms.X and Another [2019 (3) KHC 199] also had occasion to

consider in a situation, where a case involving 376 of IPC, has been

quashed in view of the subsequent settlement and marriage

between the victim and the accused.

10. It has come out that defacto complainant is not

interested to prosecute the matter further and is now living happily 1CRL.MC NO. 5929 OF 2020

with the petitioner along with their two children. Since the

petitioner and the defacto complainant have already married and

are living together as husband and wife, continuation of the

criminal proceedings against the petitioner would definitely affect

their peaceful marital life. Hence, I am of the view that it would be

just and proper for doing complete justice to the parties to quash

the entire proceedings pending against the petitioner in crime No.

417/2015 of Kaliyar police station.

In the result, this Crl.M.C. stands allowed and further

proceedings in S.C.No. 590/2017 on the file of the First Additional

District and Sessions Court, Thodupuzha, which arose out of crime

No.417/2015 of Kaliyar Police Station, is hereby quashed.

Sd/-

M.R.ANITHA JUDGE nkr 1CRL.MC NO. 5929 OF 2020

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5929/2020

PETITIONER ANNEXURE ANNEXURE A A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN S.C.NO.590/2017 OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT,THODUPUZHA.

ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE OF THE PETITIONER WITH THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 16.12.2015 ISSUED BY THE MARRIAGE OFFICER, KOZHIKODE.

ANNEXURE C AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED, 19.3.2020.