Nidheesh.S vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 23192 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA
  WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1943
                      CRL.MC NO. 422 OF 2020
    CRIME NO.1020/2019 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA
                             DISTRICT
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

          NIDHEESH.S
          AGED 22 YEARS
          S/O. SURESH, NIDHEESH BHAVAN,
          OCHIRA P.O. KOLLAM 690 526,
          NOW RESIDING AT PUTHUPALLY,
          KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA.
          BY ADV RASHEED C.NOORANAD


RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
          HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.

    2     AISWARYA
          D/O. KARTHIKA RAJAN, ANOOP BAHAVN,
          NEAR DEVIKULANGARA TEMPLE,
          THEKKU KOCHU MURI, PUTHUPALLY VILLAGE,
          KAYAMKULAM 690 527.

          BY ADV M.N.ANITHA
          BY ADV.RENJIT GEORGE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR


     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRL.MC NO. 422 OF 2020
                                 2

                             ORDER

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

proceedings pending against the petitioner in crime No.1020/2019

of Kayamkulam police station registered under Sections 354(C),

363, 366, 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 read

with 8, Section 6 read with 5(l) of the Protection of Children from

Sexual Offence Act, 2012 and Section 75 of Juvenile Justice and

Section 66(E) of Information Technology Act, 2000.

2. Petitioner is the sole accused in the above crime. The

second respondent is the defacto complainant and presently she is

the wife of the petitioner. The case was registered on the basis of

the statement given by the defacto complainant, who was a minor

at the time of occurrence.

3. The prosecution case is that on 21.10.2016, the

petitioner sexually abused the defacto complainant in his house.

The allegation is that under the promise to marry the defacto

complainant, on that day he taken her to various places including

Valiyazheekkal beach, etc and thereafter committed rape upon her

on 17.09.2017.

4. Annexure-I is the copy of the FIR. After she attained CRL.MC NO. 422 OF 2020

majority, the petitioner married her and Annexure-II is the copy of

the marriage certificate of the petitioner and the defacto

complainant, which would prove that they got married on

16.10.2019.

5. Adv. M.N.Anitha appeared on behalf of the defacto

complainant and she supports the averments in the petition and

submitted that now the defacto complainant is living with the

petitioner and a child is also born in their wedlock.

6. Annexure-III is the affidavit duly sworn in by the defacto

complainant wherein she categorically stated about the

solemnisation of marriage as well as the birth of the child.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor filed report of the SHO

along with copy of the signed statement of the victim.

8. It is relevant to quote Ashiq v. State of Kerala

[2019(2) KLT 1130], wherein this Court 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.

9. 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 CRL.MC NO. 422 OF 2020

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.

10. 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.

11. It has come out that the petitioner married the defacto

complainant subsequent to the registration of the crime and

presently they are living together as husband and wife and a child

is also born out of their wedlock. So 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 CRL.MC NO. 422 OF 2020

No.1020/2019 of Kayamkulam police station

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

proceedings in crime No.1020/2019 of Kayamkulam police station

against the petitioner is hereby quashed.

Sd/-

M.R.ANITHA JUDGE nkr CRL.MC NO. 422 OF 2020

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 422/2020

PETITIONER ANNEXURE ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 1020/2019 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT DATED 04/04/2019.

ANNEXURE II           A TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE
                      ISSUED   BY    THE   KARTHIKAPPILLY GRAMA
                      PANCAHAYATH DATED 26.10.2019.

ANNEXURE III          A   TRUE  COPY   OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED

27/10/2019 SIGNED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT /DEFACTO COMPLAINT.