Rahendhu vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 13192 Ker

Kerala High Court

Rahendhu vs State Of Kerala on 15 December, 2023

Author: P Gopinath

Bench: P Gopinath

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
   FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945
                     CRL.REV.PET NO. 837 OF 2023
    CRIME NO.1772/2020 OF PATHANAPURAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
   IN SC 765/2021 OF SPECIAL COURT- OFFENCES UNDER SC/ST (POA)
                       ACT,1989, KOTTARAKKARA
REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

          RAHENDHU
          AGED 24 YEARS, S/O RAVEENDRAN,
          ANCHUPARAYIL PUTHENVEEDU, PADOM, KALANJOORE VILLAGE,
          PATHANAPURAM KOLLAM, KERALA, PIN - 689 695.

          BY ADVS.
                  S.RAJEEV
                  V.VINAY
                  M.S.ANEER
                  SARATH K.P.
                  ANILKUMAR C.R.
                  PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH
                  K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN


RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
          PIN - 682 031.

    2     XXX
          XXX
          BY ADV NOUSHAD K.A. (SR.PP)
     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 15.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.Rev.Pet. NO.837 OF 2023                     2



                                   ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1772/2020 of

Pathanapuram Police Station, Kollam district, which was

registered alleging commission of offences under Section

376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. The allegation against the petitioner was that, the

defacto complainant, while working as a nurse in a private

hospital, got acquainted with the petitioner/accused and they

had physical relationships with each other, which according to

the defacto complainant was on the promise that the petitioner

would marry her.

3. According to the learned counsel for the

petitioner/accused, the defacto complainant/victim was a

married woman at the relevant time. The petitioner/accused

therefore filed an application for discharge under Section 227

Cr.P.C. before the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act Cases,

Kottarakkara. That application for discharge has been

dismissed by the impugned order dated 24-07-2023 holding as

follows:

"2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and the learned Special Public Prosecutor. I have perused the charge and the records produced by the prosecution. I am satisfied that there is sufficient materials to proceed with the case. Hence the present petition filed by the accused to discharge him u/s 227 Cr.P.C. is dismissed".

The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused would submit

that, going by the judgment of this Court in Nimmy Mathew

v. State of Kerala; 2023 (5) KLT 783, which in turn relies on

the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ghulam Hassan Beigh

v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey & Ors; (2022) SCC Online

SC 913, the Court considering the application for discharge

must consider the application for discharge by looking into the

question as to whether the evidence collected by the

prosecution is sufficient to presume, that the accused has

committed the offence. It is submitted that, the impugned

order does not indicate any application of mind by the special

court to the contentions raised in the application for discharge

and therefore, the impugned order may be set aside with a

direction to the special court to reconsider the application, in

accordance with the law.

4. Heard the learned Senior Public Prosecutor also.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that

the petitioner has made out a case for interference with the

impugned order in CMP No.127/2023 in SC No.765/2021. The

only reason recorded by the learned Judge while dismissing the

application for discharge has been extracted above. The

reason recorded by the learned Special Judge does not show

application of mind and does not give any reason as to why the

application for discharge must be dismissed.

Therefore, the impugned order dated 24-07-2023 in CMP

No.127/2023 in SC No.765/2021 will stand set aside with a

direction to the Special Court to reconsider CMP No.127/2023

in SC No.765/2021 in accordance with the law, having due

regard to the judgment of this Court in Nimmy Mathew

(Supra) and, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor. I make

it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of

the application for discharge.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P. JUDGE ats