Kerala High Court
Xxxxx vs State Of Kerala on 24 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 5076 OF 2018
CRIME NO.727/2018 OF POOCHAKKAL POLICE STATION
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
VISHNU
AGED 24 YEARS
S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, THANALIL VEEDU, NEDUMBRAKKAD,
CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT (VICTIM):
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF
POLICE, CHERTHALA DIVISION, REPRESENTED THORUGH
THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM.
2 VICTIM XXX
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.S.RAMU, SRI. M P PRASANTH PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.6550/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 2 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 69 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER IN SC 906/2021 ON THE FILES OF THE
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT (FOR THE TRIAL OF
CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE TOWARDS
WOMEN AND CHILDREN)KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:
RADHA C.P.
AGED 59 YEARS
W/O.BALAN V., SAIKRUPA, PERUVAYAL, KUNNAMANGALAM,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 008.
BY ADV ADITHYA RAJEEV
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, KOCHI - 682 031.
2 XXX
X
BY ADV SREEHARI INDUKALADHARAN,
SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA, SR PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5076/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 3 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 84 OF 2022
AGAINST SC 809/2020 OF 1ST ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE FAST
TRACK SPECIAL COURT, PATTAMBI
PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 AND 2
1 XXXXX
XXX
2 XXX
XXX
BY ADVS.
RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY
K.VIJINA
RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031.
2 YYYY
X
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. M P PRASANTH PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5076/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 4 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 127 OF 2022
CRIME NO.242/2018 OF KILIKOLLOOR POLICE STATION
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
FAIZAL
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O HABEEB, CHAPPAYILPUTHENVEEDU, ROSE NAGAR-34,
ARUNOOTTIMANGALAM CHERRY, MANGADU VILLAGE,
KILIKOLLOOR P O, KOLLAM-691004.
BY ADV M.RAJESH
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KILIKOLLOOR POLICE STATION, KILIKOLLOOR P O,
KOLLAM DISTRICT-691004.
3 XXXXX
XXX
BY ADV C.R.JAYAKUMAR, SMT T .V.NEEMA SR PP ,
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5076/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 5 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 138 OF 2022
CRIME NO.393/2018 OF TIRUR POLICE STATION
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
ANSAR
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O.HAMSAKOYA, ASSAINARUPURAKKAL HOUSE, VADIKKAL,
KUTTAYI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV P.T.SHEEJISH
RESPONDENT/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAIINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031.
2 XXX
X
BY ADV AJOY VENU,SRI. M P PRASANTH PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5076/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 6 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 279 OF 2022
SC 906/2021 OF ON THE FILES OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS COURT (FOR THE TRIAL OF CASES RELATING TO
ATROCITIES AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE TOWARDS WOMEN AND CHILDREN),
KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:
RAJESH KUMAR
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O.BALAN V., SAIKRUPA, PERUVAYAL, KUNNAMANGALAM,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN 673 008
BY ADV ADITHYA RAJEEV
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, KOCHI 682 031
2 XXXXX
X
BY ADV SREEHARI INDUKALADHARAN,SMT
M.K.PUSHPALATHA, SR.PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5076/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 7 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 347 OF 2022
SC 251/2020 OF SESSIONS COURT,PATHANAMTHITTA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
X
AGED 70 YEARS
XXX
BY ADVS.V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH
VISHNU CHANDRAN
RALPH RETI JOHN
APPU BABU
SHIFNA MUHAMMED SHUKKUR
ANILA T.THOMAS
MAMATHA S. ANILKUMAR
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM
2 Y
XXX
BY ADV ALBIN ANTO,SMT T .V.NEEMA SR PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5076/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 8 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 366 OF 2022
CRIME NO.1600/2021 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
FEBIN ANTONY
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O. ANTONY THOMAS, POONIYIL HOUSE, AZHOOR,
PATHANAMTHITTA-689645.
BY ADVS.
B.PRAMOD
P.V.MATHEW (POWANCHIRA)
NAMITHA JYOTHISH
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM-682031.
2 XXX
X
BY ADV BIJU VIGNESWAR,SRI. M P PRASANTH PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5076/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 9 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 445 OF 2022
AGAINST SC 264/2021 OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT KUNNAMKULAM
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 ABIN BIJU,AGED 24 YEARS,S/O. BIJU, THATTIL HOUSE,
PARATHODU, KONNATHADI, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
2 BOBIN CHACKO,AGED 27 YEARS,S/O. CHACKOCHAN,
THATTIL HOUSE, PARATHODU, KONNATHADI, IDUKKI
DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.,
R.RANJITH (MANJERI)
T.U.ANUKRISHNA
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031, THROUGH THE
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IRITTY POLICE STATION,
KANNUR DISTRICT.
2 XXXXX, D/O
XXXXX
3 XXXX S/O
XXXX
BY ADV A.P.NIDHIN KUMAR
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 10 :-
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT T .V.NEEMA SR PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5076/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 11 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 408 OF 2022
AGAINST SC 1741/2019 OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT, (POCSO),
NEYYATTINKARA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
RUPESH,AGED 37 YEARS
S/O. KRISHNAN, SHREE CHAKRA BANGLAVU, NEAR
VETTAMUKKU JUNCTION, THIRUMALA VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 006
BY ADV S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031
2 XXX
XXX
BY ADV MUHAMMED SUHAIL K.H.,SRI. M P PRASANTH PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5076/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 12 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 424 OF 2022
CRIME NO.3077/2019 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA
DISTRICT
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
AKASH @ APPU,AGED 26 YEARS
S/O. SANTHOSH , THAZHASSERIL HOUSE, K.M.C. 33,
CHIRAKKADAVAM MURI, GOVINDAMUTTOM, PUTHUPPALLI
VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA 690 502.
BY ADVS.
K.SIJU
ANJANA KANNATH
T.S.SREEKUTTY
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 690 502.
3 XXX
X
BY ADV A.MUHAMMED RAFFI
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 13 :-
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. M P PRASANTH PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5076/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 14 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 466 OF 2022
AGAINST SC 1245/2016 OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT,
NEYYATTINKARA
PETITIONER/VICTIM:
XXXXX
X
BY ADVS.ABHISHEK M. KUNNATHU, RASAL JANARDHANAN
A., P.U.PRATHEESH KUMAR, NAVANEETH N.NATH, THARA
JOHNSON,P.R.AJAY
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE S.I. OF
POLICE, (CRIME NO. 285/15), MALAYINKEEZHU POLICE
STATION REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM -31.
2 ANEESH, AGED 35 YEARS, SADHANANDAN PILLAI, NEELA,
HOUSE NO. 17/306, PERUKAVU JNANA PRAKASHAM ROAD,
VILAVOOR VILLAGE 695 573.
SRI. M P PRASANTH PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5076/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 15 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 455 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER SC 936/2021 OF FAST TRACK COURT FOR POCSO
ACT CASES (ADDITIONAL SESSONS COURT) TIRUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
XXXX
AGED 26 YEARS
X
BY ADV P.SAMSUDIN
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. (CRIME
NO.952/2020 OF PARAPPANANGADI POLICE STATION)
2 YYYY
BY ADV M.ANUROOP,SMT T .V.NEEMA SR PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5076/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 16 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 533 OF 2022
CRIME NO.859/2021 OF PANOOR POLICE STATION
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
HANSHAD,AGED 33 YEARS
S/O.PACHAPPARAMBATH HAMSA, HASNA'S VAISHYARAVIDA,
BYPASS ROAD, PANOOR, PANOOR (PO), KANNUR - 670
692.
BY ADV CIBI THOMAS
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:
1 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
PANOOR POLICE STATION, KANNUR, PIN - 670 692.
2 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
3 VICTIM
X
BY ADV G.PRATHAP CHANDRA,SMT T .V.NEEMA SR PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5076/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 17 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 521 OF 2021
CRIME NO.863/2020 OF PERINTHALAMANNA POLICE STATION
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
MOHAMMED JABIN
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O.ABDUL SALAM, PUZHAKKAL HOUSE, PANDIKKAD P.O.,
MALAPPURAM, KERALA 676 521., NOW RESIDING AT
BUILDING NO.3, DAHARAHAN STREET, AL MALAZ,
RIYADH, SAUDI ARABIA, P.O., BOX 11564.
BY ADV P.JINISH PAUL
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM 682 031
2 XXX
BY ADV NIRMAL V NAIR,SMT T .V.NEEMA SR PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5076/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 18 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 5690 OF 2021
AGAINST SC 661/2020 OF ADDL.DISTRICT SESSIONS FAST TRACK
SPECIAL COURT(FOR POCSO CASES), KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER:
NARAYANAN KEEZHAVIL, AGED 57 YEARS
S/O.GOPALAN NAMBIAR, CHERIYATHODI HOUSE,
CHANIYAMKADAVU P.O., BADAKARA, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT-673 541.
BY ADVS.KRISHNADAS P. NAIR
M.RAJESH KUMAR
RESPONDENT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
BADAKARA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680
310.
3 XXXX
SRI. M P PRASANTH PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5076/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 19 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 1363 OF 2021
AGAINST SC 199/2018 OF PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS
COURT,IRINJALAKUDA
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:
1 X
2 XX
3 XXX
BY ADVS.P.K.ANTONY
SMT.NASEEBA K.T.
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, KOCHI
682 031.
2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MATHILAKAM POLICE
STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 685.
3 XXX
BY ADV SAIJO HASSAN,SMT T .V.NEEMA SR PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5076/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 20 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 1387 OF 2021
AGAINST SC 1426/2018 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (CASES
RELATING TO THE ATROCITIES AND SEXUAL OFFENCES AGAINST
WOMEN AND CHILDREN)THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
YYY
X
BY ADV LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENTS/STATE COMPLAINANT AND VICTIM:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT 695 521
3 XXX
X
BY ADV R.ARUN, SMT T .V.NEEMA SR PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5076/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 21 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 1439 OF 2021
CRIME NO.855/2020 OF PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
JABIN MOHAMMED
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O. ABDUL SALAM, PUZHAKKAL HOUSE, PANDIKKAD
P.O., MALAPPURAM, KERALA-676521, NOW RESIDING AT
BUILDING NO.3, DAHARAHAN STREET, AL MALAZ,
RIYADH, SAUDI ARABIA, P.O.BOX -11564.
BY ADV P.JINISH PAUL
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
2 XXX
BY ADV NIRMAL V NAIR, SMT.T.V.NEEMA, SR PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5076/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 22 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 1607 OF 2021
CRIME NO.6/2020 OF KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
1 YYY
xxx HUSBAND OF THE VICTIM
2 FATHIMA T., @ THAMANNA FATHIMA, D/O RAZIYA, AGED
23 YEARS, THADAPARAMBIL HOUSE, ITHIKATTOOR,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT
3 AKHIL SURESH, S/O SURESH, AGED 23 YEARS, AKHIL
BHAVAN, ADIMALY PO, ADIMALY, IDUKKI DISTRICT
4 VAISHAK BALACHANDRAN, SO BALACHANDRAN, AGED 23
YEARS, KIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE, CHIRAYIRAMBU,
THOTTUPUZHASSERY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
5 ARYA S. D/O SADANANDAN, AGED 23 YEARS,
PULITHOOKIL HOUSE, 200 aCRE, ADIMALY, IDUKKI
DISTRICT
BY ADV LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT AND VICTIM:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
682031.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 23 :-
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KALAMASSERRY POLICE
STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682021.
3 VICTIM
X
4 XXX, FATHER OF THE VICTIM
X
BY ADV R.ARUN,SMT M.K.PUSHPALATHA SR PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5076/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 24 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 1764 OF 2021
AGAINST SC 1043/2019 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (SPECIAL
COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF OFFENCES UNDER POCSO
ACT),MOOVATTUPUZHA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SOBHANA,AGED 25 YEARS
D/O. RAJAN, VALIYAPARAMBU HOUSE, VANOORKARAYIL,
ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV P.SAMSUDIN
RESPONDENTS/STATE & VICTIM:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
2 THE VICTIM
IN CR.NO.1120/2019 OF PIRAVOM POLICE STATION IN
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV M.O.PAULSON, SRI.M.P.PRASANTH, PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5076/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 25 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 1834 OF 2021
CRIME NO.3403/2020 OF NEYYATTINKARA POLICE STATION
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
ASILIDAS,AGED 27 YEARS
S/O DASAYYAN, RESIDING AT CHIRATHALA VEEDU,
VLANGAMURI, NEYYATTINKARA POST, NEYYATTINKARA
VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA, PIN-695 121.
BY ADVS.
SEBASTIAN JOSEPH (KURISUMMOOTTIL)
SRI.C.MOHANAN(THIRUPURAM)
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NEYYATTINKARA
POLICE, STATION, NEYYATTINKARA, REPRESENTED BY
THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM-682 030.
2 VICTIM
XX
BY ADV.SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA, SR PP.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5076/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 26 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 2321 OF 2021
AGAINST SC 368/2020 OF OF SPECIAL COURT FOR POCSO CASES,
ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
ANWAR SADIQ
AGED 24 YEARS
S/O. ABDUL RAHMAN, PATTANIVEETIL HOUSE,
MALESWAMANGALAM P.O., THIRUVILWAMALA VILLAGE,
THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680588.
BY ADV E.A.HARIS
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & DEFACTO COMPLAIANT (VICTIM):
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, -682031.
2 Y
BY ADV T.JAYAN, SMT.SHEEBA THOMAS, PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5076/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 27 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 3021 OF 2020
AGAINST SC 1032/2019 OF 1ST ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT,
PALAKKAD
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
MANIKANDAN M.,AGED 24 YEARS
S/O.MUTHU, RESIDING AT ANGANAVADI LINE,NERUGAKADU
MARUTHA ROAD, KALLEPULLY P.O. PALAKKAD 678 005.
BY ADVS.
T.C.SURESH MENON
SRI.P.S.APPU
RESPONDENTS/NOT PARTY/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 030.
2 SELVARAJ, S/O. PERUMAL, RESIDING AT DURGA LINE,
PARAMBUTHARA, PUTHUR, PALAKKAD 678 001.
3 XXXX, D/O XXXX, RESIDING AT XXXX
BY ADV AKHIL S.VISHNU, SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA, SR.PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5076/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 28 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 2759 OF 2021
SC NO.974/2017 OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT (POCSO ACT)
THRISSUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4.:
MADHUSOODANAN
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O.KESAVAPANIKKER, KALARIKKAL HOUSE, PEROOR
DESAM, LAKKIDI PEROOR, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
C.DHEERAJ RAJAN
K.ANAND
RESPONDENT/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031 (CRIME NO.1342/2014 OF
PAZHAYANNUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT).
2 XXXX
BY ADV VISHNUPRASAD NAIR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5076/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 29 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 3213 OF 2021
SC NO.709/2020 OF THE FAST TRACT SPECIAL COURT (FTSC) FOR
THE DISPOSAL OF CASES REGISTERED UNDER THE POCSO ACT,
KOYILANDI
PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
A A A
BY ADV J.ABHILASH
RESPONDENTS/STATE/ACCUSED 1 TO 5:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
2 VVV
3 WWW
4 XXX
5 YYY
6 ZZZ
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 30 :-
SMT.T.V.NEEMA, SR PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5076/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 31 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 2870 OF 2021
CRIME NO.211/2021 OF KUMBLA POLICE STATION, KASARAGODE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2:
1 SHAMSUDDHIN P., AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL
RAHMAN.M., K.M.HOUSE, MOONNAM MILE, PULLUR,
KASARAGODE, NOW RESIDING AT M.H.QUARTERS, MUTTOM,
SHIRIYA, MANJESHWAR VIA, KASARAGODE-671 321.
2 AYISHA, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O.SHAMSUDHEEN, MH
QUARTERS, MUTTOM, SHIRIYA, KASARAGODE-671 321.
BY ADV T.G.RAJENDRAN
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KUMBLA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 .
2 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
3 XXX
XXX
BY ADV N.KRISHNA RAJA MAULI,
SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA SR PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5076/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 32 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 3482 OF 2021
AGAINST SC 126/2019 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE I KASARAGOD
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:
1 MOHAMMED SIRAJ .P,AGED 26 YEARS
S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN, R/AT PALAGAMOOLA HOUSE,
KUMBDAJE, YETHADKA P.O., KASARAGOD-671 551.
2 BADRUDDEEN,AGED 27 YEARS
S/O. UMMER, R/AT KARKKADAGOLI HOUSE, KUMBDAJE,
YETHADKA P.O., KASARAGOD-671 551.
3 SULFIKAR D,AGED 27 YEARS
S/O. ABDULLA G, R/AT GANDITHADKA HOUSE, KUMBDAJE,
YETHADKA P.O., KASARAGOD-671 551.
BY ADV MUHAMMED YASIL
RESPONDENTS/STATE OF KERALA AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 018.
2 MISS.XXX
3 MISS.YYY
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 33 :-
4 MISS.ZZZ
5 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
(CRIME NO.353 OF 2016), BADIADKA POLICE STATION,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 551.
BY ADV JACKSON JOHNY,SRI. M P PRASANTH PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5076/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 34 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 4206 OF 2019
CRIME NO.1045/2019 OF POONTHURA POLICE STATION
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
PRAVEEN KUMAR P.
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O. VASUDEVAN V.I. VILLA, PARAPRAM P.O.,
PINARAYI.
BY ADV CIBI THOMAS
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:
1 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
POONTHURA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695
026.
2 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.
3 VICTIM
SMT M.K.PUSHPALATHA, SR PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5076/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 35 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 3652 OF 2021
SC NO.1181/2018 OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT,
NEYYANTINKARA
PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:
XXXX
BY ADV P.M.SHAHIDA
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682031.
2 XXXX
BY ADV S.SOUMYA ISSAC, SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5076/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 36 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 4771 OF 2021
ST NO.69/20221 OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, MALAPPURAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
MUHAMMED SHAHUL,
AGED 21 YEARS
S/O. ISMAIL, RESIDING AT OSSANVEETTIL HOUSE,
ALAMKODU P.O., KAKKIDIPPURAM PONNANI, TIRUR
TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 679 585.
BY ADVS.
J.R.PREM NAVAZ
SUMEEN S.
RESPONDENT/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682 031.
2 XXX
X
BY ADV AJOY VENU, SMT T .V.NEEMA SR PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5076/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 37 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 4931 OF 2021
AGAINST CP 6/2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
I,PEERUMEDU
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
XXXXX
X
BY ADVS.
RAJEE P MATHEWS
BINDU MOHAN
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM-682031.
2 YY
3 ZZ
BY ADVS.SMT T .V.NEEMA SR PP
VIJAY SANKAR V.H.
AISWARYA E J VETTIKOMPIL
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5076/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 38 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 5734 OF 2021
CRIME NO.1053/2021 OF VADAKKANCHERRY POLICE STATION
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
XXXXX
BY ADV V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)
RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE:
1 VICTIM
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
BY ADV UNNI SEBASTIAN KAPPEN, SRI. M P PRASANTH PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5076/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 39 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 5531 OF 2020
CRIME NO.1968/2020 OF MALAYINKEEZHU POLICE STATION
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SIVAN .R @ SIVAN RAJAN
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O.RAJAN, SIVARAMAN IYER BHAVAN, CHAYAM, VITHURA
P.O., THOLIKODE VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
MALAYINKEEZHU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT-695571.
3 VICTIM, XXXX
BY ADV R.ARUN, SMT.T.V.NEEMA, SR PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5076/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 40 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 6038 OF 2021
AGAINST SC 412/2021 OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT, ALUVA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
ANEESH
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O KUMARAN, MALAYAMTHURUTHI HOUSE, KUNNU BHAGAM,
ELAVOOR KARA, KARUKUTTY VILLAGE, KARUKUTTY
P.O.ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 576
BY ADV P.SHAIJAN JOSEPH
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAIANT/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
ANGAMALY POLICE STATION, ANGAMALY P.O.ALUVA
TALUK, PIN-683 578
3 XXX
BY ADV K.K.AJI KUMAR, SRI. M P PRASANTH PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5076/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 41 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 5765 OF 2020
AGAINST SC 717/2019 OF 1ST ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COUERT,
THRISSUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
XXX
AGED 22 YEARS
X
BY ADV ABRAHAM MATHAN
RESPONDENTS/VICTIM/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE:
1 XXX
2 XXX
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
4 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KODAKARA POLICE STATION, KODAKARA - 680 684.
BY ADV SRI.K.ANAND, SMT.M.K.PUSHAPALATHA, SR PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5076/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 42 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 6327 OF 2021
AGAINST CP 102/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-
I ,TIRUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
MUKESH V.P.AGED 33 YEARS
S/O. GANESHAN.V.P., VENGAPPARAMBIL HOUSE,
THIRUMITTAKODE POST, DUBAI ROAD, RAYAMANGALAM ,
KOOTYUPATHA, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 533
BY ADVS.S.K.PREMJITH MENON
BINU V V VEETTIL VALAPPIL
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUR
POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, THROUGH THE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM-682 031
2 XXXX
VICTIM IN CASE NO.364/18 ON THE FILE OF TIRUR
POLICE STATION
BY ADV MANEKSHA D., SMT.T.V.NEEMA SR.PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5076/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 43 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 6299 OF 2021
AGAINST SC 544/2018 OF ADDITIONAL SPECIAL COURT (POCSO),
MUVATTUPUZHA
PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED:
BIPIN P. K.AGED 26 YEARS
S/O. KUNJAPPAN, PANIKKARUKUDIYIL HOUSE,
PEZHAKKAPPILLI KARA, PUNNOPPADY, MULAVOOR
VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS/STATE, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND INFORMANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
2 XXXXX
3 XXXXX
BY ADV K.K.AKHIL,SMT.T.V.NEEMA, SR PP.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5076/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 44 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 6430 OF 2021
CRIME NO.863/2021 OF KATHIROOR POLICE STATION
PETITIONER/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
XXX
AGED 44 YEARS
XXX
BY ADVS.
C.HARIKUMAR
T.B.PRASANNAN
SANDRA SUNNY
ARUN KUMAR M.A
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND ACCUSED:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
2 PREMJITH V ALIAS JITHU
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O LATE VASU P K, VASUDEVAN HOUSE, PONNIAM WEST
P O, SARAMBI, KANNUR-670641.
BY ADV P.N.SUKUMARAN, SRI.M.P.PRASANTH, PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5076/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 45 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 6550 OF 2018
AGAINST LP 45/2016 OF PRINCIPAL SESSIONS COURT,MANJERI
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
MUHAMMED ASLAM, AGED 27 YEARS
S/O SAIDALAVI KOYA, KALLUPARAMBAN HOUSE, KC ROAD,
TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
BY ADV R.RANJITH (MANJERI)
RESPONDENTS/STATE, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682031- FOR THE SUB
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRURANGADI POLICE STATION,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676001
2 RAJAN, S/O PREMAN,AGED 40 YEARS, KOLATHAYI HOUSE,
KAKKAD P.O, TIRURANGADI VILLAGE, TIRURANGADI
TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
3 SHANTHI, W/O RAJESH,AGED 37 YEARS,KOLATHAYI
HOUSE, KAKKAD P.O, TIRURANGADI VILLAGE,
TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV A.P.NIDHIN KUMAR, SRI.M.P.PRASANTH, PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5076/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 46 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 6564 OF 2021
CRIME NO.244/2020 OF VALIATHURA POLICE STATION
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
XXX
X
BY ADV M.RAJESH
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
VALIATHURA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695008.
3 XXX
X
BY ADV G.GOPAKUMAR (KOLLAM) SRI.M.P.PRASANTH, PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5076/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 47 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 6718 OF 2021
CRIME NO.729/2021 OF KOZHIKODE TOWN POLICE STATION
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
XXXXX
X
BY ADV SHARAN SHAHIER
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
2 YYY
Y
BY ADVS.
V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH
VISHNU CHANDRAN
RALPH RETI JOHN
APPU BABU
SHIFNA MUHAMMED SHUKKUR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5076/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 48 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 7885 OF 2019
CRIME NO.56/2019 OF AREAKKODE POLICE STATION
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 LITHIN V.S., AGED 24 YEARS
S/O.SUKUMARAN, KUNNUMMAL HOUSE, VADAKKUMURI,
URGATTIRI, AREAKKODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
2 SUKUMARAN, AGED 64 YEARS
KUNNUMMAL HOUSE, VADAKKUMURI, URGATTIRI,
AREAKKODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV P.SAMSUDIN
RESPONDENTS/STATE, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682
031 (IN CRIME NO.56/2019 AREAKKODE POLICE
STATION).
2 VICTIM
X
BY ADVS.SR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.T.V.NEEMA
BINU V V VEETTIL VALAPPIL
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5076/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 49 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 7984 OF 2019
CRIME NO.661/2018 OF IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
ABHILASH JOHN
AGED 21 YEARS
S/O.JOHN, ARIKKATT HOUSE, CHAKKRAM GARDEN,
MADAYIKONAM VILLAGE, MAPRANAM DESOM,
IRINJALAKUDA, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR.
BY ADVS.
C.RAJENDRAN
SRI.B.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS/STATE & 2ND RESPONDENT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682031.
2 VICTIM,
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.P.PRASANTH, PP
SRI.V.BINOY RAM
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5076/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 50 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 8810 OF 2019
AGAINST SC 907/2018 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (FOR THE
TRIAL OF CASES RELATING TO SEXUAL VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
AND CHILDREN) KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
RAGESH,
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, PAVATTUPURACKAL HOUSE, KAVIL P.
O., NADUVANNOOR, KOZHIKODE.
BY ADV M.J.SANTHOSH
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
THAMARASSERY POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2 VICTIM,
BY ADV FRANCIS.M.KURIAN, SRI.M.P.PRASANTH, PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 24.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5076/2018
AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 51 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 5288 OF 2022
CRIME NO.1420/2021 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:
1 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
2 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
3 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
BY ADVS.M.T.SURESHKUMAR
SHRI.R.RANJITH,SC,KOOVAPPADY GRAMA PANCH
SMITHA PHILIPOSE,P.R.JAYASANKAR
MANJUSHA K, SREELAKSHMI SABU
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
BY ADVS.JOSE ANTONY
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5076/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 52 :-
"C.R."
O R D E R
Dated this the 24th day of May, 2023
Can criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable
sexual offences against women and children be quashed upon a
compromise between the accused and the victim, invoking
section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? - this is the
common issue that falls into consideration in these bunch of
cases.
2. The petitioners in all cases are the accused involved in
sexual offences either under Chapter XVI of the Indian Penal Code
(for short 'IPC') or under Chapter II of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO Act') or both.
All of them seek to quash the proceedings on the ground of
settlement with the victim.
3. Since there were divergent views on the subject by the
Apex Court and High Courts across the country, I have directed
the Counsel for the petitioners as well as the Public Prosecutors
to address arguments in detail.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 53 :-
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned Public Prosecutors in extenso.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that
High Court possesses inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C') to annul an FIR
or criminal proceeding in appropriate cases where the offender
and the victim have settled their dispute notwithstanding the fact
that the offence involved is a sexual offence against women or
children. The learned counsel further submitted that when the
matter has been amicably settled, the victim would not support
the prosecution case, and the possibility of conviction would be
bleak. The continuation of proceedings, in such circumstances,
would be a sheer waste of precious judicial time and public
money, submitted the Counsel. Per contra, the learned Public
Prosecutors submitted that rape or sexual offence against women
or children is a heinous crime against society, and any
compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to
such an offence could not ordinarily provide for any basis for
quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of the wholesome
power of the High Court under section 482 of Cr.P.C. They further
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 54 :-
submitted that compromises legalise rape and offer an escape
route to the perpetrators. However, they fairly concurred with the
view expressed by this court that there cannot be total embargo
in exercising the extraordinary power vested with this court under
section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings based on the
settlement between the accused and the sexual assault victim in
suitable cases to do complete justice to them. The learned Public
Prosecutors added that in all the cases, enquiry was conducted
through respective investigating officers regarding the
genuineness of the settlement and the statement of the victims
was also recorded wherein they admitted that the matter was
amicably settled.
6. Compounding in the context of criminal law means
forbearance from prosecution because of an amicable settlement
between the parties. Section 320 is the only statutory provision in
Cr.P.C. for compounding the offence. It classifies the offences
which are simply compoundable and compoundable with the
permission of the Court [S.320(1) and S.320(2)]. The lawmakers
never thought of incorporating any specific provision in Cr.P.C. for
compounding an offence other than the offences mentioned in
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 55 :-
sections 320(1) and 320(2). There may be cases where the victim
is prepared to condone the offensive conduct of the accused, who
became chastened and repentant even though the offence
charged is non-compoundable. The criminal law administered in
the country is not attuned to take note of such situations and to
provide a remedy to terminate the criminal proceedings.
However, through judicial intervention, the Apex Court found a
solution in cases where accusations are non-bailable and non-
compoundable, holding that recourse to inherent powers under
section 482 of Cr.P.C. would be permissible even in non-
compoundable offences for quashing criminal proceedings.
7. The scope of power exercisable under section 482 of
Cr.P.C. when a prayer is made for quashing criminal proceedings
involving non-compoundable offences on account of settlement
between the parties came up for consideration before the Apex
Court initially in Joshi v. State of Haryana1. Describing the scope of
inherent powers, it was held that section 320 of Cr. P.C does not
limit or control the exercise of powers vested in the Court under
section 482 of Cr.P.C., and the Court would have the power to
1AIR 2003 SC 1386
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 56 :-
quash criminal proceedings or an FIR under the exercise of
powers under section 482 even if the offence was non-
compoundable under section 320 of Cr.P.C. The Apex Court drew
a distinction between compounding an offence as permitted
under section 320 of Cr.P.C and quashing the complaint or
criminal proceedings under section 482 of Cr.P.C. as also Article
226 of the Constitution of India and held that the power of the
High Court under section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash criminal
proceedings or FIR was not circumscribed by section 320 of
Cr.P.C. To the same effect was the decision in Nikhil Merchant v.
Central Bureau of Investigation2, where relying upon the decision
in Joshi (supra), the Apex Court took note of the settlement
arrived at between the parties and quashed the criminal
proceedings involving non-compoundable offences. It was held
that since the criminal proceedings had the overtone of a civil
dispute which have been amicably settled between the parties, it
was a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to stand
in the way of quashing the criminal proceedings since the
continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at
2AIR 2009 SC 428
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 57 :-
between the parties would be a futile exercise. In Manoj Sharma
v. State3 also, the Apex Court took the view that once the
disputes are settled between the parties amicably, High Court
cannot refuse to exercise the jurisdiction either under section 482
of Cr.P.C or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash
the criminal proceedings even if the offence involved is non-
compoundable. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab4, the two-Judge
Bench of the Apex Court doubted the correctness of the above
three decisions and referred the question as regards the
permissibility of indirectly permitting compounding of non-
compoundable offences recoursing to section 482 of Cr.P.C. to a
larger Bench. Finally, the issue was settled by a three-Judge
Bench in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab5. The Apex Court explaining
that the High Court has inherent power under section 482 of
Cr.P.C with no statutory limitation, including section 320 of Cr.P.C.,
has held that these powers are to be exercised to secure the ends
of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court, and these
powers can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings or
32008 (4) KLT 417 (SC)
4(2010) 15 SCC 118
5(2012) 10 SCC 303
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 58 :-
complaint or FIR in appropriate cases where offender and victim
have settled their dispute. However, it also observed that the
Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the
crime and criminal proceedings in heinous and serious offences
or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc., should not be quashed
despite the victim or victim's family have settled the dispute with
the offender. The jurisdiction vested in High Court under section
482 of Cr. P.C was held to be exercisable for quashing criminal
proceedings in cases having overwhelming and predominantly
civil flavour, particularly offences arising from a commercial,
financial, mercantile, civil partnership or such like transactions, or
even offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc.,
family dispute or other such disputes where wrong is basically
private or personal in nature where parties mutually resolve their
dispute amicably. It was also held that no category or cases for
this purpose could be prescribed, and each case has to be dealt
with on its own merit. Later, in Narinder Singh and Others v. State
of Punjab and Others6 , the Apex Court summed up and laid down
principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving
6(2014) 6 SCC 466
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 59 :-
adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and
exercise its power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. while accepting
the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to
accept the settlement with direction to continue with criminal
proceedings. It was reiterated that such a power is not to be
exercised in prosecutions which involve heinous and serious
offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc. Nonetheless, it would be
advantageous to refer to paragraphs 26 and 29.6 of the judgment
above, wherein the Apex Court has held thus:
"26. Having said so, we would hasten to add that
though it is a serious offence as the accused
person(s) attempted to take the life of another
person/victim, at the same time the court cannot be
oblivious to hard realities that many times whenever
there is a quarrel between the parties leading to
physical commotion and sustaining of injury by
either or both the parties, there is a tendency to give
it a slant of an offence under Section 307 IPC as well.
Therefore, only because FIR/Charge-sheet
incorporates the provision of Section 307 IPC would
not, by itself, be a ground to reject the petition under
section 482 of the Code and refuse to accept the
settlement between the parties. We are, therefore, of
the opinion that while taking a call as to whether
compromise in such cases should be effected or not,
the High Court should go by the nature of injury
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 60 :-
sustained, the portion of the bodies where the
injuries were inflicted (namely whether injuries are
caused at the vital/delicate parts of the body) and
the nature of weapons used etc. On that basis, if it is
found that there is a strong possibility of proving the
charge under Section 307 IPC, once the evidence to
that effect is led and injuries proved, the Court
should not accept settlement between the parties.
On the other hand, on the basis of prima facie
assessment of the aforesaid circumstances, if the
High Court forms an opinion that provisions of
Section 307 IPC were unnecessary included in the
charge sheet, the Court can accept the plea of
compounding of the offence based on settlement
between the parties."
"29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in
the category of heinous and serious offences and
therefore are to be generally treated as crime
against the society and not against the individual
alone. However, the High Court would not rest its
decision merely because there is a mention of
Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed
under this provision. It would be open to the High
Court to examine as to whether incorporation of
Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the
prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which
if proved, would lead to proving the charge under
Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to
the High Court to go by the nature of injury
sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 61 :-
vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons
used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries
suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding
factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the
High Court can examine as to whether there is a
strong possibility of conviction or the chances of
conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case
it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the
criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it
would be permissible for the High Court to accept the
plea compounding the offence based on complete
settlement between the parties. At this stage, the
Court can also be swayed by the fact that the
settlement between the parties is going to result in
harmony between them which may improve their
future relationship".
The above dictum, thus, makes it clear that the Court cannot
decline to quash the FIR or chargesheet merely because it
contains a particular provision which is a serious offence or an
offence against the society. The Court must endeavour to find out
whether the FIR or charge sheet indeed discloses the ingredients
of such an offence and that the Court can accept the settlement
and quash the proceedings if it is of the opinion that such an
offence is unnecessarily incorporated in the charge sheet. The
correctness of the above decision was doubted and referred to a
larger Bench. A three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in State of
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 62 :-
Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others7 approved the
decision in Narinder Singh (supra).
8. The offence involved in Joshi (supra), Nikhil Merchant
(supra), Manoj Sharma (supra), Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh
(supra) or Laxmi Narayan (supra) is not rape or any other sexual
offence against women or children. The specific question whether
section 482 of Cr.P.C. could be invoked to quash a criminal case
involving non compoundable sexual offences against women and
children after a compromise entered between the accused and
the sexual assault victim came up for consideration before the
Apex Court and various High Courts.
9. The High Court of Kerala in Sebastian @ Solly v. State
of Kerala and Another8 held that cases involving offence under
section 376 of IPC are not fit for the exercise of discretion under
the extraordinary power of the High Court invoking section 482 of
Cr.P.C. on the ground of settlement between the accused and the
prosecutrix. The High Court of Allahabad in Rajesh Kumar and
Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another9 held that any
7(2019) 5 SCC 688
82015(1) KLJ 384
92021 KHC 2312
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 63 :-
compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to an
offence of rape could not provide for any basis for quashing the
criminal proceedings. The High Court of Delhi in Swatantra Kumar
Jaysawal v. State and Another10 refused to quash a criminal
proceeding involving an offence of rape based on a settlement
between the accused and the victim holding that rape is a crime
against society. It was observed that their subsequent marriage
would not waive off the offence. The High Court of Punjab and
Haryana in Nardeep Singh Cheema @ Navdeep Singh Cheema v.
State of Punjab and others11 and Kerala in Rahul P.R. and Another
v. State of Kerala and Another12 took the similar view and held
that offence under the POCSO Act cannot be quashed based on
the compromise or matrimony between the accused and the
prosecutrix. The High Court of Gauhati in Limhathung v. State of
Nagaland13 did not accept the compromise entered between the
parents of the victim and the accused, holding that the parent
could not give consent to compromise sexual offences against
minors. In a proceeding under sections 377 of IPC and 5(1) and 6
10 2022 SCC 0nLine Del.30
11CRM-M-2270-2020, decided on 07.09.2022.
122021(5) KHC 284
13Cr. Rev. No. 5 of 2021, decided on 24.03.2022.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 64 :-
of the POCSO Act, the High Court of Kerala in Usman and Another
v. State of Kerala and Another14, held that High Court could not
concede to the plea of quashing criminal proceedings solely on
the ground of settlement between the parties.
10. In almost all the above decisions, the respective High
Courts heavily relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in
Shimbhu & Another v. State of Haryana15 and State of Madhya
Pradesh v. Madan Lal16 to conclude that grave and serious
offences like rape under section 376 of IPC or sexual offence
against children under the POCSO Act cannot be quashed on the
ground of compromise. In Shimbhu (supra), the Apex Court held
that rape is an offence against society and, thus, not a matter
that should be left to the parties to negotiate and settle. In
Madan Lal (supra), it was held that in case of rape or attempt of
rape, there could be no compromise between the accused and
the victim legally.
11. In Shimbhu (supra), the accused persons abducted the
victim girl at knifepoint, confined her in their shop for two days
14 2021 (3) KHC 390
15 AIR 2014 SC 739
16AIR 2015 SC 3003
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 65 :-
and gang-raped her, taking turn. The Trial Court convicted and
sentenced them to undergo ten years of rigorous imprisonment,
which was confirmed in appeals by the High Court. The accused
preferred appeals by way of special leave at the Apex Court.
During the pendency of the appeals, the parties (the accused and
the victim) compromised the matter, and the victim produced an
affidavit mentioning the settlement. The accused prayed for the
reduction of sentence to the period already undergone based on
the settlement. The Apex Court rejected the plea and held that
the compromise could not be construed as a leading factor to
award lesser punishment. While holding so, it was observed that
rape is an offence against society and not a matter to be left for
the parties to compromise and settle. In fact, the said case did
not involve an issue regarding the power of the High Court under
section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash a proceeding on the basis of
compromise between the accused and the sexual assault victim
but was a case wherein the accused were convicted for the
offence under section 376 IPC for rape, and the compromise was
highlighted at the Apex Court as a plea for reduction of the
sentence as provided under the proviso of S.376(2) of IPC.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 66 :-
In Madan Lal (supra), the Apex Court was hearing an appeal filed
by the State against the judgment of the High Court by which the
conviction arrived at by the trial Court was set aside based on a
compromise arrived at between the victim and the accused.
There the accused tricked the victim aged seven years, and then
raped her. Later the mother lodged the F.I.R. The trial Court
convicted the accused under section 376(2) (f) of IPC. The High
Court converted the conviction to one under section 354 of IPC
and confined the sentence to the period of custody already
undergone taking note of the settlement. It was under that
circumstances the Apex Court held that there could be no
compromise between the accused and the victim legally.
12. Though in Shimbhu (supra) and Madan Lal (supra), the
Apex Court took the view that rape being a grave and serious
offence against society cannot be the subject matter of
compromise, it, as well as various High Courts, in several
subsequent decisions, quashed the proceedings under section
376 of IPC and the POCSO Act for justifiable reasons by exercising
inherent powers under section 482 of Cr. P.C.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 67 :-
13. The Apex Court in Saju P.R. v. State of Kerala17,
quashed a 'rape case' on the ground of settlement between the
accused and the victim for 'doing complete justice to the parties
concerned'. In Anand D.V. v. State and Another18 , the Apex Court
allowed the compromise and quashed the proceedings for rape
on the ground that the accused married the victim. The crime
therein was registered against the accused on the complaint of
the victim for offences under sections 376 and 380 IPC, alleging
that the accused, by giving a false promise of marriage, had
sexual intercourse with her, but the promise was not honoured.
However, after the registration of the FIR, both got married, and
they approached the High Court of Delhi, seeking to quash the
proceedings invoking section 482 of Cr.P.C read with Article 226
of the Constitution of India. The High Court dismissed their plea,
and therefore, both preferred separate appeals at the Apex Court.
The Apex Court allowed the appeals and quashed the
proceedings holding that the parties were happily married. In
Jatin Agarwal v. State of Telangana & Another 19, a similar rape
17 Criminal Appeal No. 1740 of 2019, decided on 22.11.2019.
18 Criminal Appeal Nos. 394-395 of 2021, decided on 12.04.2021.
19Criminal Appeal No.456 of 2022, decided on 21.03.2022.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 68 :-
case was quashed as the victim got married to the accused. That
was a case where an FIR was lodged against the accused by the
victim for offences under Sections 417, 420, and 376 IPC alleging
that on the promise to marry, the accused made a physical
relationship with her, but he withdrew from the promise and
refused to marry her. However, later, both got married and
therefore, they moved to the High Court of Telangana, seeking
the quashing of the FIR. The High Court dismissed their plea to
quash the FIR, and therefore, they moved to the Apex Court. The
Apex Court accepted the settlement, allowed the appeal, and
quashed the FIR, exercising its powers under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India, observing that it was necessary to do
complete justice to the parties. In K. Dhandapani v. The State by
the Inspector of Police20, the Apex Court set aside the conviction
and sentence of an accused who raped his own niece and later
married her. The accused was working as a woodcutter on daily
wages in a private factory. An FIR was lodged against him for
committing rape on his niece on a false promise of marriage
under Section 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6, 5(I) read with Sections 6
20 Cr. A. No.796 of 2022, decided on 09.05.2022.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 69 :-
and 5(n) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The trial Court
convicted and sentenced him to ten years of rigorous
imprisonment, which the High Court upheld. Aggrieved thereby,
the accused approached the Apex Court. The accused submitted
that since he has, in fact, married the prosecutrix and they have
two children, it would not be in the interest of justice to disturb
their family life. The State opposed the grant of any relief to the
accused, contending that the prosecutrix was aged 14 years on
the date of the offence and that the marriage might only be for
the purpose of escaping punishment. The Court taking note of the
custom in Tamilnadu, which permits the marriage of a girl with
her maternal uncle, and the statement of the prosecutrix that she
is leading a happy married life with the appellant, set aside the
conviction observing that "This Court cannot shut its eyes to the
ground reality and disturb the happy family life of the appellant
and the prosecutrix". However, as a note of caution, the Court
added that in the peculiar facts of the case, it should not be
treated as a precedent. Recently in Kapil Gupta v. State of NCT of
Delhi & Another21, the Apex Court quashed the FIR registered
21 (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1030
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 70 :-
under section 376 of IPC as the matter was amicably settled
between the accused and the victim holding that though
ordinarily, cases under Section 376 of IPC should not be quashed,
the Court is not powerless in exercising the extraordinary
jurisdiction to quash the proceedings in the facts and
circumstances of a particular case. It was further held that while
exercising the power, the Court has also to take into
consideration whether the settlement between the parties is
going to result in harmony between them, which may improve
their mutual relationship and the stage of the proceedings. The
Apex Court was hearing an appeal challenging the judgment of
the High Court of Delhi dismissing the application filed by the
victim for quashing the proceedings under section 376 of IPC
invoking section 482 of Cr.P.C. While allowing the appeal, the
Apex Court observed that since the victim herself is not
supporting the prosecution case, even if the trial is allowed to go
ahead, it will end in nothing else than an acquittal and if the
request for quashing is not allowed, it will amount to adding one
more criminal case to the already overburdened criminal courts.
14. The High Court of Karnataka in Sathish K. and Others v.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 71 :-
State of Karnataka22 held that an offence under Section 376 IPC
can be permitted to be compounded, in specific circumstances,
which includes a situation where the closure of such a case would
promote the family life of the complainant and the accused. The
Punjab and Haryana High Court in Chandan Paswan v. State of
Punjab and Another23 quashed the proceedings for rape on the
ground that the matter had been compromised and the accused
married the victim. In Ashiq v. State of Kerala24, where the
accused and victim settled the disputes and married
subsequently, the High Court of Kerala in the exercise of the
extraordinary inherent powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
quashed the proceedings for the purpose of welfare of the
victim. In Md. Jahirul Maulana v. State of Assam25, the High Court
of Gauhati quashed criminal proceedings against a 'rape accused'
who married the 'victim' holding that chances of conviction in the
case are bleak in view of the compromise between the parties
and marriage. It was observed that: "the ends of justice will
demand that they should be left at their will and their otherwise
22 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 178
23 CRM-M-12854 of 2021 decided on 13.04.2023.
242019(2) KLT 1130
25Criminal Petition No.234/2016, decided on 12.07.2016.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 72 :-
happy marital life should not be allowed to be disturbed by the
interfering clouds of litigations looming over their heads."
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Gokada Suresh v. State
of Andhra Pradesh 26 held that the offence under section 376
of IPC can be compounded to promote the family life of the
complainant and accused. In Vijaya Kumar v. State27, the High
Court of Karnataka held that though the offences are punishable
under Section 376 of IPC and the provisions of POCSO Act, since
the parties have settled the dispute and the accused and the
victim are living together, the petition filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., needs to be allowed and the proceedings have to be
quashed. The High Court of Delhi in Arshad Ahmad & Others v.
State of NCT of Delhi28 while quashing an FIR for the offence of
rape and cruelty by a woman against her father-in-law and
others has said that quashing of FIR in matrimonial offences is
welcome as it shows that parties have decided to put an end to
the dispute as well as the misery. The High Court of Meghalaya
in Shri. Skhemborlang Suting & Another v. State of Meghalaya &
26Criminal Petition No.105 of 2023, decided on 04.01. 2023.
27Crimiinal Petition No. 136/2020, decided on 08.01.2020.
28WP (Crl). 1185 of 2022 & Crl. M.A. 10056 of 2022, decided on 02.06.2022.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 73 :-
Another29 quashed the case against a man under the POCSO Act,
2012, for marrying a 16-year-old girl, observing that it would be
an "injustice" to separate a "well-knitted family unit". Taking note
of the unique facts and circumstances of the case, the court held
that allowing prosecution would "only result in the breakdown of
a happy family relationship and the possible consequence of the
wife having to take care of a baby with no support, physically or
financially from her husband who may be languishing in jail". In
Kundan & Another v. State & Others30, the High Court of Delhi
quashed a similar FIR, considering that the life of the husband,
wife, and child would be "ruined". As did the High Court of
Bombay in Nauman Suleman Khan v. State of Maharashtra31,
recently, quashing an FIR under POCSO Act for penetrative sexual
assault after the victim, who on attaining majority, said that she
and the accused were "in love and are now to be married", and
the accused gave the undertaking to marry her. The court
accepted the same, considering the accused and the victim's
"future" and in the interest of a "peaceful life". The High Court of
29Crl. Petn. No. 63 of 2021, decided on 23.03.2022.
30Crl.M.C.No. 27/2022, decided on 21.02.2022.
31(2022) SCC OnLine Bom. 1148
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 74 :-
Punjab and Haryana in Pankaj @ Sikandar Kumar v. State of Ut
Chandigarh and Another32 quashed an FIR registered under
section 376 of IPC and section 6 of the POCSO Act honouring the
agreement between the accused and the victim that they would
solemnize their marriage as soon as the latter attains the age of
marriage. In Manga Singh v. State of Punjab and Others33, the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana quashed the proceedings based on
a compromise for the reason that the prosecutrix had solemnized
marriage with the accused prior to the registration of the FIR, a
child was born in that wedlock, and they were living in peace and
harmony. The High Court of Kerala in Freddy @ Antony Francis and
Another v. State of Kerala and Another34 and in Denu P. Thampi v.
Ms. X35 quashed the criminal proceedings involving sexual
offence under IPC and the POCSO Act, where the accused is
alleged to have committed sexual assault on the victim on the
false promise of marriage, on the ground that they subsequently
married and settled the dispute. It was held that since the
accused and the victim are now residing as husband and wife, it
32 CRM - M No. 47266 of 2019, decided on 05.03.2020.
33 Criminal Misc. No.M.19131/2016, decided on 01.05.2018.
342017 KHC 344
352019 (2) KLT 996
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 75 :-
would be in their welfare to quash the proceedings. A similar view
was taken by the High Courts of Bombay 36, Uttarakhand37 and
Punjab and Haryana38.
15. The inherent power given to the High Court under
section 482 of Cr.P.C. is with the purpose and object of
advancement of justice. The touchstone for exercising that power
would be to secure the ends of justice. The ends of justice are
higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be
administered in accordance with the laws enacted by the
legislature. The concept of justice is elastic and imprescriptible.
There can be no hard and fast line constricting the power of the
High Court to do substantial justice. A restrictive construction of
inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may lead to rigid or
specious justice, which in the given facts and circumstances of a
case, may instead lead to grave injustice. Nonetheless, such
powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the
context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) the
Nature and effect of the offence on the consciousness of the
36 Swapnil Digambar Patil v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Criminal Application No. 52/2021, decided on
03.01.2022)
37Rahul v. State of Uttarakhand (Criminal Misc. Application 249/2020, decided on 20.02.2020)
38 Lovely v. State of Punjab and Another (CRM-M-3577-2018, decided on 09.03.2018)
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 76 :-
society; (ii) the Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary
nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv)
Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence
of the purported offence or other relevant considerations 39.
16. From the precedents and law on the subject
enunciated above, it can be concluded that though the High
Court should not normally interfere with the investigation/
criminal proceedings involving sexual offences against women
and children only on the ground of settlement, it is not
completely foreclosed in exercising its extraordinary power under
section 482 of Cr. P.C or Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
quash such proceedings in 'extraordinary circumstances' to do
complete justice to the parties. However, it is always a difficult
task for the Court to identify the so-called 'extraordinary
circumstance'. The interest of the victim and the societal interest
often clash, making the job of Courts more complex. The issue
must be considered from different perspectives, the pros and
cons must be weighed, and a rational view must be taken. A
holistic approach is called for in identifying the cases fit for
39 See Ramgopal v. State of Madya Pradesh [2021 (5) KLT 601 (SC)]
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 77 :-
compromise.
17. Out of the bunch of cases, many of them related to
prosecution for 'sexual assault' on a false promise of marriage. In
those cases, the alleged sexual act was admittedly consensual,
but according to the victim, consent was obtained by the accused
on a false promise to marry. It was alleged that any consent given
under misconception of fact is vitiated, and therefore the act
becomes an act without consent, thereby making it rape. In
some cases, the promise was not honoured, and in a few cases,
the promise was honoured subsequently, and the victim and the
accused got married after the registration of the FIR. In few other
cases, the married woman indulged in consensual sex with a
man, or an unmarried woman indulged in sex with a married man
knowing that he was married after making a promise of marriage.
There are also cases where the victim came forward to quash the
proceedings with the pleas that she agreed to have sexual
intercourse on account of her love and passion for the accused
and not solely on account of the misconception created by the
accused or where an accused, on account of circumstances which
he could not have foreseen or which were beyond his control, was
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 78 :-
unable to marry her despite having every intention to do.
18. There is a clear distinction between rape and
consensual sex. There is also a distinction between a mere
breach of a promise and not fulfilling a false promise. It is trite
that in a prosecution for rape on the false promise of marriage,
the crucial issue to be considered is whether the allegation
indicates that the accused had given a promise to the victim to
marry, which at the inception was false and based on which the
victim was induced into a sexual relationship. Without such an
allegation or proof, the offence of rape will not be attracted. If the
accused has not made the promise to seduce the prosecutrix to
indulge in sexual acts, such an act will not amount to rape. So
also, in a case where the allegation is that the accused had
sexual intercourse with the victim after obtaining her consent by
giving a promise of marriage and when he subsequently marries
her, it really means fulfilment of the promise made by the
accused to the prosecutrix and the offence may not get attracted.
In cases where the married woman had consensual sex with a
man, or an unmarried woman had sex with a married man
knowing that he was married induced by the promise of marriage,
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 79 :-
the offence of rape will not get attracted since she knew well that
marriage by or with a married person is illegal, and such a
promise cannot be honoured. Recently, this Court in xxx v. State
of Kerala and Another40 has held that the promise alleged to have
been made by the accused to a married woman that he would
marry her is a promise which is not enforceable in law as it is
against public policy in view of the mandatory provisions
contained in Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act and such an
unenforceable and illegal promise cannot be the basis for the
prosecution to contend that the consent of the woman, who had
sexual relationship with the accused, was obtained on the basis
of the misconception of fact as understood in Explanation 2 of
Section 375 of the IPC and Section 90 of the IPC. Similarly, if the
allegations and materials disclose that the victim agreed to have
sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion for the
accused or where the accused could not marry her on account of
circumstances beyond his control, the offence will not be
attracted. In these types of cases, there is no point in not
exercising the jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash
402022 KHC 296
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 80 :-
the proceedings on the ground of compromise between the
accused and the sexual assault victim.
19. There is yet another category of cases where though
the victim alleged that the sexual assault or rape was forceful or
against her will, later, they settled the dispute, got married and
led a peaceful life. In most of those cases, the victim admits that
the allegation of rape was levelled only because the accused
refused to marry her. Allowing prosecution to continue in those
cases would only result in the disturbance of their happy family
life. On the contrary, the closure of such a case would promote
their family life. In such cases, the ends of justice demand that
the parties be allowed to compromise. However, the Court must
ensure that the marriage is not a camouflage to escape
punishment and the consent given by the victim for compromise
was voluntary. The Court must also be satisfied after considering
all the facts and circumstances of the case that quashing the
proceedings would promote justice for the victim and the
continuation of the proceedings would cause injustice to her.
20. It is beyond doubt that the acknowledged physical
relationship between two adults could not constitute an offence
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 81 :-
of rape under section 376 of IPC. There are some cases where
though sexual intercourse was participatory, the victim made a
complaint alleging that it was forceful and consequently, FIR was
registered. When those types of cases come up for quashing on
the ground of settlement, if the Court, on perusal of the
statement of the victim, the materials collected during the
investigation as well as the affidavit of the victim, finds that the
alleged sexual intercourse was consensual, there is no point in
allowing such redundant criminal proceedings to continue only to
burden the already overburdened criminal courts further.
21. Growing incidences where teenagers who are involved
in a romantic relationship with each other fall victim to the
offences under the POCSO Act is yet another issue of much
concern. These types of 'teen romance' often turn into cohabiting
consensually, and the girl alleges rape due to pressure from
family, fear of society or when the boy refuses to marry. Since
sexual intercourse with a minor is considered "statutory rape",
crime is registered in those types of complaints. The question is,
can such sexual assault cases against minors be quashed based
on compromise?
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 82 :-
22. The High Court of Madras41 while quashing a criminal
proceeding initiated under the POCSO Act on the ground of
settlement between the accused and the victim held that
punishing an adolescent boy for entering a relationship with a girl
below 18 years of age was never an objective of this act. "What
came to be a law to protect and render justice to victims and
survivors of child abuse can become a tool in the hands of certain
sections of the society to abuse the process of law.", it added.
The High Court of Calcutta42 acquitted an accused, holding that a
voluntary joint act of sexual union would not attract offence
under the POCSO Act. The court held that "penetration" as
defined under the POCSO Act must mean a "positive, unilateral
act" on the part of the accused, and consensual participatory
intercourse, in view of the passion involved, need not always
make penetration by itself, a unilateral positive act of the
accused but might also be a union between two persons out of
their own volition. The Court was considering an appeal where
the accused, aged 22, was convicted under Section 376(1) of the
IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act by the trial Court. The
41Vijayalakshmi & Anr. v. State & Anr. (Crl.O.P.232/21 decided on 27.01.2021)
42Ranjit Rajbanshi v. The State of West Bengal and others (C.R.A. No.458 of 2018, decided on 17/9/2021)
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 83 :-
accused took the defence that the victim, aged 16½ years, gave
her consent for the act and had admitted her relationship with
him. The High Court of Allahabad 43 while granting bail to a man
booked under the POCSO Act for impregnating a 14-year-old girl,
said that the law didn't intend to bring cases of dense romantic
affairs between adolescents or teenagers under its aegis.
23. It is settled that though a minor is not qualified to
enter into a contract, it could be the beneficiary of one. In other
words, a parent or guardian is competent to contract on behalf of
the minor if it is in its best interest. Section 320(4) of Cr. P.C. says
that if the person entitled to compound an offence is minor or
lunatic, any person competent to contract on their behalf can
compound such an offence on their behalf. Under Rule 7 of Order
XXXII of the Code of Civil Procedure, a next friend or guardian of
the minor, with the leave of the Court, can enter into an
agreement or compromise on behalf of the minor with reference
to the suit in which he acts as next friend or guardian. The term
'best interest of the child' generally refers to the deliberation
courts undertake when deciding what services, actions, and
43Atul Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (Crl.Misc.Bail Application No. - 53947 of 2021 decided on 25.01.2022)
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 84 :-
orders best serve a child. Article 3.1 of the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989, states that in all
decisions concerning children that are made by public or private
social protection institutions, courts, administrative authorities or
legislative branches, the child's best interest must be a vital
consideration. 'Best interest' determinations are generally made
by considering several factors, with the child's safety and well-
being as the paramount concern. As per Section 2(9) of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, 'best
interest of the child' means the basis for any decision taken
regarding the child to ensure fulfilment of its basic rights and
needs, identity, social well-being, and physical, emotional, and
intellectual development. Thus, while dealing with the petitions
moved by the parent or guardian of the sexual assault victims to
quash the criminal proceedings on the ground of compromise, the
court must consider whether the allegations prima facie
constitute the ingredients of the offence, whether the settlement
is in the best interest of the minor victim and whether
continuance of the proceedings against the accused and the
participation of the minor victim in that proceedings would
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 85 :-
adversely affect the mental, physical, and emotional well-being of
the latter.
24. Another common form of sexual abuse of children is
incest or intrafamilial sexual abuse. Most incest occurs between
father and daughter. Other instances of sexual abuse of children
are most often committed by stepfather, by older male relatives,
by friends who have access to children within the family setting
and by people normally trusted by parents. Out of the bunch of
cases, one is incestuous sexual assault committed by the father-
in-law and another one by the grandfather - a clear case of the
fence itself eating the crop.
25. Child abuse of any kind is a negative experience that
often affects survivors to varying degrees throughout their lives.
However, child sexual abuse committed by a parent or other
relative -- that is, incest -- is associated with particularly severe
psychological symptoms and physical injuries for many survivors.
Trauma can affect both bodies and minds. The survivors of father-
daughter incest are more likely to report feeling depressed,
damaged, and psychologically injured than are survivors of other
types of child abuse. It can have lasting effects on a child's
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 86 :-
development and sense of safety. The mental trauma and agony
the helpless child underwent each time her own father,
stepfather or close relative sexually abused her cannot be lost
sight of by the court while considering the plea to quash the
proceedings on the ground of settlement. That apart, in such
cases, the Court cannot always be assured that the consent given
by the victim in compromising the case is voluntary. There is
always the possibility that she is pressurised by the convict or by
her own mother, who, in most cases, supports the accused. Thus,
any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation
to an offence of incestuous sexual assault could not normally
provide any basis for quashing the criminal proceedings.
26. These are the broad principles to be borne in mind
while considering the plea to quash criminal proceedings
involving non-compoundable sexual offences based on
compromise. However, every case is unique and must be decided
based on its peculiar facts. The viability of quashing a criminal
proceeding on the ground that the accused and the sexual
assault victim settled the dispute revolves ultimately around the
facts and circumstances of each case, and no straitjacket formula
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 87 :-
can be formulated. Apart from the categories of cases discussed
above, where the High Court has such facts on record which
clearly exhibit that the criminal prosecution involving non-
compoundable sexual offences against women and children will
result in greater injustice to the victim, its closure would only
promote her well-being, and the possibility of a conviction is
remote, it can indubitably evaluate the consequential effects of
the offence beyond the body of an individual and thereafter adopt
a pragmatic approach and very well decide to quash such
proceeding upon a compromise between the accused and the
victim after taking into account all the relevant facts and
circumstances of the particular case including the nature,
magnitude, consequences of the crime and genuineness of the
compromise. Needless to emphasize, the sexual offences which
are grave, heinous, and gruesome in nature shall never be the
subject matter of compromise.
27. Bearing in mind the above parameters, let me
consider each case on its merits.
28. Crl.M.C. Nos. 1387/21, 3021/20, 5765/20, 6299/21,
6564/21, 84/22, 445/22, 455/22, 366/22, 1607/21, 4931/21,
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 88 :-
5734/21, 6327/21, 6718/21 & 5288/2022: All these cases are
prosecutions for rape or sexual assault on a false promise of
marriage. The facts are almost similar, except for the slight
difference that, in the first eight cases (Crl.MC Nos. 1387/21,
3021/20, 5765/20, 6299/21, 6564/21, 84/22, 445/22 & 455/22), at
the time of the alleged incident, the victim was minor, and in the
remaining cases (Crl.M.C.Nos.366/22, 1607/21, 4931/21, 5734/21,
6327/21, 6718/21 & 5288/2022), the victim was major. The
allegations in all the cases are that the accused, by giving a false
promise of marriage, had sexual intercourse with the victim, but
retracted from the promise. However, later, the accused and the
victim got married, and therefore, they sought to quash the
proceedings on the ground of settlement.
28.1. As stated already, in a case where the allegation is
that the accused had sexual intercourse with the victim by
obtaining her consent by giving a promise of marriage and when
he subsequently marries her, it really means fulfilment of the
promise made by the accused to the victim. Since the accused
married the victim, honouring the promise though belatedly, the
basis of FIR does not survive.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 89 :-
28.2. In almost all these cases, the accused and the victim
were in love for many years, and they had consensual sex on
several occasions. The victims in all the cases have sworn in
affidavits stating that the sexual intercourse they had was purely
consensual in nature, and they have no objection to quash the
proceedings. In none of the cases is there a specific allegation in
the FI statement that when the accused promised to marry the
victim, it was done with bad faith and with the intention to
deceive her. In short, the alleged sex between the victim and the
accused can only be termed voluntary and one on account of love
and passion. Hence, offences are not made out.
28.3. It is also borne out from the records that the accused
and the victim in all the cases are happily married, and most of
them were blessed with children. Allowing the prosecution to
continue, in such circumstances, may adversely affect their
happy family life. Considering the nature of allegations in the FIR
in all the cases, the affidavits sworn in by the victims and other
details on record referred above, in my opinion, the relief claimed
by the petitioners to quash the criminal proceedings pending
against them deserves to be acceded to for doing complete
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 90 :-
justice to the parties.
29. Crl.M.C. Nos. 69/22, 279/22 & 533/22: The facts of
these three cases are identical in nature. The common allegation
is that the accused, after giving false promise of marriage,
sexually assaulted the victim on several occasions and thus
committed the offence of rape. The accused in all the three
cases was already married and had children when they met the
victim. The victim fell in love with the accused, knowing that he
was already married. Admittedly, they voluntarily visited many
places and had consensual sexual intercourse many times.
According to the victim, she consented to sex on the promise
given by the accused that he would marry her. As stated already,
this court in xxx v. State of Kerala (supra) has held that the
promise alleged to have been made by the accused to a married
woman that he would marry her is a promise which is not
enforceable in law, and such an unenforceable and illegal promise
cannot be a basis for the prosecution under section 376 of IPC.
Here, no question of promise to marry arises since the accused is
a married man, and the victim knew well that legal marriage with
him was not possible under the law. That apart, on the entire
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 91 :-
reading of the FIS, it is evident that sexual intercourse was
consensual in nature. Hence, the basic ingredient of the offence
under section 376 of IPC is not attracted against the accused.
Thus, the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners,
which are the subject matter of the above Crl.M.C.s, are only to
be quashed.
30. The following cases can be considered together as the
facts therein are similar. In all the cases, the crime was
registered against the accused under sections, inter alia, 376 of
IPC on the complaint of the victim alleging that on the promise to
marry, the accused made a physical relationship with her, but he
withdrew from the promise and refused to marry her.
30.1. Crl.M.C. Nos. 521 & 1439/2021: Both these cases are
connected. The accused and the victim are one and the same.
The offence alleged is also same. The allegations are almost
similar. The allegation is that the victim, 28 years old divorcee,
met the accused, 28-year-old doctor, working in Saudi Arabia
through a matrimonial site, thereafter they fell in love and had
sexual intercourse several times at different places under the
pretext of promise to marry. A reading of the FIS would show that
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 92 :-
the victim voluntarily went along with the accused and stayed in
different hotels at different places of Kerala on number of
occasions and they had consensual sexual intercourse. In the
affidavit sworn in by the victim, she stated that she lodged
complaint purely out of sudden provocation due to strained
circumstances.
30.2. Crl.M.C. No. 127/2022: The FIS indicates that the
victim, aged 22 years, and the accused, aged 27 years, were in
love and they had consensual sex on number of occasions at the
house of the victim, that too during night. In the affidavit, the
victim stated that she preferred the complaint against the
accused to persuade and compel him to marry her, as advised by
some of her friends. Now the victim has married another man and
leading a happy married life.
30.3. Crl.M.C. No. 466/2022: The victim is a divorcee aged
43 years and the accused is aged 35 years. The records show
that they were in love and had consensual sexual intercourse at
the house of the accused as well as at various hotels since 2014.
In the affidavit, the victim stated that the alleged sexual
intercourses were consensual in nature and not under the pretext
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 93 :-
of promise to marry. She further stated that they were in deep
love and during those days, they were exchanging their mind and
body out of passion, and she lodged the complaint when she
came to know that the accused had similar relationship with
another women.
30.4. Crl.M.C. No. 7984/2019: The victim was aged 20
years and the accused was aged 21 years at the time of the
registration of the crime i.e., in 2018. They were in love since
2016 with the knowledge and consent of their parents. The FIS
indicates that on 19/4/2018, they together went to Bangkok with
the approval of their parents, stayed there for 8 days in a
honeymoon package and indulged in consensual sexual
intercourse. Thereafter, they also had consensual sex on several
occasions. Their relationship strained when the victim suspected
that the accused had relationship with other women. In the
affidavit, the victim stated that she preferred the complaint at the
instance of her mother to compel the accused to marry her.
30.5. Crl.M.C. No. 5531/2020: Both the victim and the
accused were working in Abudabhi. The victim was a divorcee,
aged 40 years. They met through a matrimonial site and
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 94 :-
thereafter they were in a live-in relationship at a flat at Abudabhi
for some time. During the said period, they had consensual sex
several times. In the affidavit, the victim has admitted that they
were in live-in relationship and the sexual intercourse they had
during the subsistence of the said relationship was purely
consensual.
30.6. Crl.M.C. No. 5076/2018: Both the accused and the
victim were aged 24 years and they were in deep love for six
years. The FIS indicates that they had consensual sexual
intercourse several times at the house of the victim. In the
affidavit sworn in by the victim, she stated that though they were
in deep and true love for more than six years, the relatives of the
accused did not agree for their marriage and thus they mutually
decided to end the relationship. She further stated that she
lodged the complaint due to the pressure exerted by her
relatives. She also stated that the sexual relationship they had
was purely consensual in nature and not under the pretext of
promise to marry.
30.7. Crl.M.C. No. 138/2022: The FIS would show that the
victim and the accused were in love, and they had consensual
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 95 :-
sexual intercourse several times at the house of the victim as
well as at the house of the accused, that too during nights. In the
affidavit sworn in by the victim, it is stated that she gave the
complaint out of misunderstanding.
30.8. Crl.M.C. No. 7885/2019: The first accused is the son,
and the second accused is the father. The first accused, aged 24
years, and the victim, aged 21 years, were in love and they
decided to marry. The allegation is that the first accused after
giving false promise to marry the victim compelled to have sexual
intercourse without her consent at her house and the second
accused sent lascivious messages through private chatting on her
Facebook account. The FIS indicates that the victim and the first
accused were in deep love, they travelled together to many
places and had sexual intercourse several times. Now, the victim
has married another man and is living a peaceful married life. In
the affidavit, the victim stated that she voluntarily went with the
first accused truly aware of premarital sexual intercourse and she
raised allegations on account of the misunderstanding between
herself and the first accused.
30.9. In all the above cases, admittedly, the victim and the
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 96 :-
accused were in love or a live-in relationship for a long period.
None of the statements of the victim reveal that the accused
made any promise with the sole intent to seduce the victim to
indulge in sexual acts. It is trite that if a man retracts his promise
to marry a woman, consensual sex they had will not constitute an
offence of rape under section 376 of IPC unless it is established
that the consent for such a sexual act was obtained by him giving
a false promise of marriage with no intention of being adhered to
and that promise made was false to his knowledge. Taking note of
the allegations in the FIS as they stand, it is impossible to find the
essential ingredients of the offence under section 376 of IPC. The
relationship between the victim and the accused appears to be
purely consensual in nature. The alleged sex between them can
only, at best, be termed as one on account of love and passion
and not on account of any misrepresentation made by the
accused. Therefore, the offence of rape is not made out in any of
the cases. In all the cases, an affidavit has been sworn in by the
victim stating that the entire dispute between her and the
accused was amicably settled, and she does not want to proceed
with the case further. In most cases, the victim has already
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 97 :-
married and leading a peaceful married life. Hence, the reliefs
sought by the petitioner in all the cases to quash the proceedings
can be allowed.
31. In the following cases though sexual intercourse was
participatory, the victim made a complaint alleging that it was
forceful and consequently, crime was registered.
31.1. Crl. M.C. No. 1834/2021: The offences alleged
include the offence under section 376(2)(n) of IPC. The
prosecution allegation is that the accused took the victim to a
hotel at Kanyakumari on 18/11/2020 by making her believe that
he would arrange a job for her and subjected her to rape. The
victim, aged 32 years, and the accused, aged 27 years, were
married people. They had been friends for the last five years.
The allegation in the FIS would show that the victim voluntarily
went along with the accused to a distant place in Thoothukkudy
of Tamil Nadu State, stayed in a hotel and had sex. Annexure A3
is the additional statement given by the victim to the police on
21/12/2020, i.e., one month after the FIS. In the said statement,
she stated that whatever relationship existed between them was
purely consensual.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 98 :-
31.2. Crl.M.C. No. 4206/2019: The offence alleged is under
section 376 of IPC. The prosecution allegation is that the
accused, with an intention to quench his sexual thirst, took the
victim on 2/1/2019 at about 2.30 p.m. to a lodge, committed rape
on her and threatened her that he would show her photographs
to her husband and relatives. The victim is a married woman
aged 40 years having two children studying in Plus Two and X th
standard, respectively. The accused also is a married man.
Admittedly, they were friends. The victim went to the lodge along
with the accused on 2/1/2019 on her own will. There is no
allegation of using force against her. Annexure A5 would show
that even after the alleged incident, the victim sent WhatsApp
messages and photos to the accused. In the affidavit, the victim
stated that the accused at no point in time raped her, and the
sexual intercourse they had was purely consensual. She further
stated that she filed the complaint at the instigation of her
relatives.
31.3. Crl.M.C. No. 6038/2021: The offences alleged are
under sections 366A and 376 of IPC. The prosecution case is
that the accused, with an intention to satisfy his lust, induced the
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 99 :-
victim girl to go from her house, took her to different places in
Tamil Nadu and had sexual intercourse with her. Initially, the
crime was registered under section 57A of the Kerala Police Act
for girl missing on the complaint of the uncle of the victim. A few
days later, the accused and the victim surrendered before the
Angamaly police, and the victim stated that she went with the
accused voluntarily. A reading of the FIS as well as the final
report, would show that the victim went out of her house at her
own wish; they voluntarily resided in many places in Tamil Nadu
and had consensual sexual intercourse. Now the victim has
married another person on 30/8/2015, and she has two children
in the said wedlock. In the affidavit filed by the victim, she stated
that the sexual intercourse she had with the accused was
consensual in nature.
31.4. Crl.M.C. No. 8810/2019: The offences alleged are
punishable under sections 376, 506(i) of IPC and section 66E of
the IT Act. The prosecution allegation is that, on 14/7/2016 and
17/3/2017, the accused committed rape on the victim in a hotel
room by threatening that the nude photographs of the victim
would be propagated through social media. The victim was a law
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 100 :-
student aged 24 years, and the accused was aged 30 years. They
were admittedly in love. The case records would show that they
voluntarily went together to several places and had consensual
sexual intercourse. In the FIS, there is no allegation that the
accused committed any mode of penetrative sexual assault on
the victim. The allegation in the FIS is so vague. Even according
to the victim, she herself gave her nude photographs to the
accused.
31.5. Crl.M.C. No. 4771/2021: The offences alleged are
under sections 363, 376(3) of IPC, section 4 r/w 3(b), 12 r/w 11(v)
of the POCSO Act and 66E of the IT Act. The prosecution case, in
short, is that the accused brought the victim to a house which
was under construction and committed sexual assault on her. At
the time of the commission of the offence, the victim was aged
15 years, and the accused was aged 17 years. They were distant
relatives and had been in love for a period of 7 months prior to
the incident. In the FIS, she stated that they were in regular touch
through WhatsApp, and she also sent him nude photos. According
to her, on 19/8/2018, she went along with the accused, and he
touched and kissed her and inserted his finger into her vagina.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 101 :-
Nowhere is it stated that those acts were committed by the
accused against her will. Both the accused and the victim were
minors on the date of occurrence of the offence and were in a
love relationship. The alleged physical relationship is not in the
nature of an assault. It is a case where the minor girl
accompanied the minor boy on her own, and the physical
relationship between them developed with mutual consent. In the
affidavit, the victim stated that the crime was registered due to a
mistake of fact.
31.6. In all the above cases, the sexual relationship was
participatory and consensual in nature. The dispute appears to
be purely personal in nature. There is no case for any of the
victims that the wanton act of the accused violated their dignity.
In the affidavit filed by the victims, they have asserted that they
are not desirous of prosecuting the case further. Hence, the
prospectus of an ultimate conviction is bleak. Having considered
all these aspects, I am of the view that these are fit cases where
the jurisdiction vested with this court under section 482 of Cr.P.C.
could be invoked to quash the proceedings.
32. The following cases, though the facts are dissimilar,
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 102 :-
could be considered together.
32.1. Crl.M.C. No. 3482/2021: The petitioners are accused
Nos.1 to 3, and respondents 2 to 4 are the victims. The offences
alleged are under sections 366A and 354D of IPC and section
11(iv) of the POCSO Act. The prosecution allegation is that at
different times in June 2016, the accused enticed and compelled
the victims to get into their car and compelled them to take
photographs with them. The 2nd respondent gave the FIS. It is
alleged that one day in April 2016, while she was returning home
from school with respondents 3 and 4, petitioners came on their
way in a car, and accordingly, they entered the car. After that, the
first petitioner told the 2nd respondent, "I love you; let us take a
photo in the mobile, get into the car tomorrow". Likewise, the
petitioners took the respondents 2 to 4 in a car the other day also
and dropped them off on their way home. The brother of the 2 nd
respondent witnessed that incident, and the complaint was
lodged. The statement of the mother of the 2 nd respondent shows
that they warned the 2nd respondent not to get into the car of the
petitioners when they knew that the 2nd respondent travelled in
the car along with the petitioners. After that, the family of the 2 nd
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 103 :-
respondent came to know that the 2 nd respondent again travelled
in the car along with the petitioners, and thus they lodged the
complaint due to the fear that the petitioners may harass the 2 nd
respondent. Going by the allegations, none of the offences
alleged are attracted. There is no allegation that the petitioners
compelled the victims to accompany them with the intention to
force them or to seduce them to indulge in intercourse to attract
366A of IPC. There is also no allegation that the petitioners
followed respondents 2 to 4 to foster their personal interaction
repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by them to
attract 354D of IPC. There is nothing to suggest that the alleged
act done by the petitioners was with sexual intent to attract
section 11(iv) of the POCSO Act. In the affidavits sworn in by
respondent Nos. 2 to 4, they stated that the complaint was filed
only at the instigation of the family members, and there was no
incident as such.
32.2. Crl.M.C. No. 3652/2021: The offences alleged are
under sections 294(b), 354A, 509 r/w 34 of IPC, sections 11(1)(iv)
r/w 12, 16 r/w 17 of the POCSO Act. The petitioner is the accused
No.2, who is the mother of the victim. The accused No.1 is the
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 104 :-
stepfather of the victim. The crux of the allegation against the
petitioner is that she induced the victim to have a sexual
relationship with the accused No.1. In the statement of the
victim, there is no allegation against the petitioner. The allegation
against the accused No.1 is that he looked at her badly. In the
statement of the remaining witnesses, there is no allegation
against the petitioner to attract any of the offences involved. The
victim has now attained 21 years and has filed an affidavit stating
that the entire dispute has been settled and she does not have
any grievance against the petitioner.
32.3. Crl.M.C. No. 3213/2021: There are five accused. The
accused No.1 is the husband and accused Nos.2 to 4 are the in-
laws of the victim. Accused Nos.5 and 6 are the parents of the
victim. The offences alleged against the accused No.1 are under
sections 376, 376(2)(n), 313, 498A and 506(i) of IPC, sections 6
r/w 5(j), (ii), (i) r/w 11(v) of the POCSO Act, section 10 of the
Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and section 67A of the IT Act.
The offences alleged against accused Nos.2 and 3 are under
sections 313, 498A and 34 of IPC and section 10 of the Prohibition
of Child Marriage Act. The offences alleged against accused
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 105 :-
Nos.4 and 5 are under section 313 r/w 34 of IPC and section 10 of
the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. The prosecution allegation is
that accused No.1 committed rape on the victim while she was a
minor in the year 2016, captured her nude photos in his mobile
phone and threatened her that he would circulate them if she
failed to surrender to his wish. Thereafter, he married the victim
in accordance with the custom. When she became pregnant, the
accused No.1 took her to a hospital and aborted the pregnancy
against her will. The allegation against accused Nos.2 to 4 is that
they subjected the victim to cruelty both physically and mentally,
demanding dowry. The allegation against accused Nos.5 and 6 is
that they conspired with the remaining accused to terminate the
pregnancy of the victim. It was also alleged that they abetted to
perform child marriage. Even though the nikah was conducted on
13/2/2016, the marriage was solemnized on 27/4/2017, after the
victim attained majority. The FIS indicates that even before the
marriage, the petitioner and the victim were in love; she
voluntarily accompanied him to his house and had consensual
sexual intercourse. Thereafter, they got married also. After their
marriage, there arose a difference of opinion between them
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 106 :-
which resulted in the registration of the crime. Now the victim
has obtained a divorce from the accused No.1, and she has filed
an affidavit stating that she does not want to proceed with the
matter.
32.4. Crl.M.C. No. 1363/2021: There are three accused.
The accused No.1 is the husband, and the accused Nos.2 and 3
are the in-laws of the victim. The offences alleged are under
section 376B, 406, 498A r/w 34 of IPC. The prosecution case is
that accused No.1 committed sexual intercourse with the victim
suppressing the fact that he pronounced talaq on her, and all the
accused subjected her to cruelty, demanding more dowry. A
perusal of the FIS shows that accused No.1 married the victim on
30/11/2003, and three children were born out of the wedlock.
According to her, when she went to the mahal committee to
lodge a complaint against the accused for their harassment, the
mahal committee informed her that the accused No.1 already
pronounced talaq on her on 15/06/2016. Thereafter she filed a
complaint alleging that even after the pronouncement of talaq,
the accused No.1 had sexual intercourse suppressing the factum
of talaq. Even going by the affidavit, there is no allegation that
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 107 :-
the sexual intercourse after the alleged pronouncement of talaq
was forceful or against her will. Hence, offence under section 376
of IPC will not be attracted. That apart, the affidavit sworn in by
the victim would show that the entire dispute has been settled,
and now the victim and the accused No.1 are living together.
Hence the alleged pronouncement of talaq is not a valid one, and
the sexual intercourse they had after the alleged date of talaq
cannot be termed as rape.
32.5. Crl.M.C. No. 1764/2021: The offences alleged are
under Sections 363 and 377 of IPC and section 3(b)(d) r/w 4 of
the POCSO Act. This is a case where a woman, aged 24 years,
committed unnatural sexual intercourse with another minor girl,
aged 17 years. The crux of the allegation against the accused is
that, on a day at about 3.30 a.m., the accused enticed the victim
girl, called her over the phone, compelled her to leave home,
took her to various places and had forceful unnatural sexual
intercourse with her against her consent. The crime was
registered based on the complaint lodged by the sister of the
victim. A reading of the FIS would show that the victim who was
in deep love with the accused, voluntarily left her house, went
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 108 :-
along with the accused, and resided at the house of their friends
on that day. It is stated in the FIS that on that night, while they
were sleeping together, the accused kissed her. It appears that
the entire act was consensual in nature. There are no ingredients
to attract any of the offences alleged against the petitioner. The
victim has filed an affidavit stating that the allegation that the
accused enticed and sexually abused her against the order of
nature is not correct. It is further stated that the allegations were
made under the pressure of her sister and mother.
32.6. Crl.M.C. No. 2321/2021: The offences alleged are
under Sections 370, 366A, 354, 354A(1)(i), 354A (2) of IPC,
Sections 8 r/w 7, 12 r/w 11 of the POCSO Act and sections 67A
and 67B of the IT Act. The prosecution case is that the accused
took the minor girl in a motorcycle, drove to Marine Drive in
Ernakulam, and committed sexual assault. The accused was aged
25 years, and the victim was aged 17 years at the time of the
alleged incident. A reading of the FIS , as well as the statement of
the victim, recorded under section 164 of Cr. P.C, would show that
they were in love. It would show that the accused and the victim
voluntarily went to Marine Drive where the accused kissed her. It
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 109 :-
is alleged that on another occasion, the victim showed her breast
to the accused through video call. These allegations are hardly
sufficient to constitute the above offences alleged against the
accused. The victim has sworn in an affidavit stating that upon a
misunderstanding, the complaint was filed, and she does not
have any grievance against the accused. Now the victim has
married another person and is living a peaceful married life.
32.7. Crl.M.C. No. 6430/2021: The offence alleged is
under section 376(1) of IPC. The victim is a married woman aged
44 years. The accused also is a married man aged 49 years. They
are relatives. According to the victim, the accused visited her
house and proposed to her. Thereafter on 1/9/2021, while she
was alone in her house, the accused came there, had liquor
together and committed rape on her when she became
unconscious. The allegation in the FIS is so vague. In the affidavit
filed by the victim, she stated that on the alleged date of the
incident, the accused came to her house, they had liquor
together, and she lost consciousness. She believed that the
accused committed rape on her while she was unconscious, and
it was in those circumstances that she lodged the complaint
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 110 :-
against him. But later, she realised that it was only her misbelief,
and, in fact, the accused did not commit any sexual act while she
was unconscious.
32.8. Crl.M.C. No. 408/2022: The offences alleged are
under sections 8 r/w 7 of the POCSO Act and section 354A (1) of
IPC. The accused is a priest in a temple. The prosecution
allegation is that the accused made the victim, and her parents
believe that the victim was suffering headache due to the
presence of evil spirit in her body, took her in a scooter for
performing pooja and while in the scooter, he caught hold of her
left hand with sexual intent. The case records would show that it
was the parents of the victim who brought her to the petitioner
for the performance of pooja to cure her illness. The only
allegation is that the accused caught hold of the left hand of the
victim while she was travelling along with him in the scooter.
There is nothing to suggest that the said act was done by the
accused with sexual intent. Now, the victim has become major.
She has sworn in an affidavit stating that she gave FIS based on
certain misunderstandings, and the entire dispute has been
settled between her and the accused.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 111 :-
32.9. Considering all the relevant facts and circumstances
of the above cases including the nature, magnitude, and
consequences of the crime, it is evident that the possibility of
conviction is remote, the criminal prosecution will result in
injustice to the victims and its closure would only promote their
well-being. It cannot be said that the offences in these cases
would fall into the category of offences that have a serious
impact on society. These are not cases wherein the allegations
reek of extreme depravity, perversity, or cruelty. In the affidavit
filed by the victims, they have stated that they have settled all
the disputes with the victims and that they are not interested to
prosecute the cases further. The ends of justice demands that
further proceedings in all these cases should be quashed.
33. Crl.M.C. Nos. 2870/2021 & 347/22: These two cases
involve incestuous sexual abuse. In Crl.M.C.No.347/2022, the
accused is the grandfather of the victim, aged 2½ years of age.
The allegation is that he committed digital penetration several
times on the victim during the period from 15/12/2019 and
17/1/2020. The allegation levelled against the accused is well
founded and there are prima facie materials to connect him with
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 112 :-
the crime. Moreover, the affidavit has been sworn in by the
mother of the victim. There is nothing on record to show that the
termination of the proceedings would be in the best interest of
the victim child. The parties also could not point out that the
continuation of the criminal proceedings and the participation of
the victim in that proceedings would affect the mental,
emotional, and educational well-being of the minor. In
Crl.M.C.No.2870/2021, there are two accused who are father-in-
law and mother-in-law, respectively, of the victim. The allegation
is that first accused/father-in-law committed rape on the
victim/the daughter-in-law on 8/3/2021 and the 2 nd
accused/mother-in-law abetted the first accused in the
commission of the crime. There is also allegation that the 2 nd
accused took the victim to a lodge and seven people committed
rape on her one by one. The alleged incident is utmost heinous in
nature and all the ingredients of the offences are attracted. In
both the above cases, the victim was sexually exploited by none
other than their grandfather, and father-in-law respectively. The
mental trauma and agony the helpless victims underwent each
time when their own close relative, who were supposed to protect
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 113 :-
her, sexually abused her cannot be lost sight of. Thus, I am of the
view that the relief sought in the above cases cannot be granted.
34. Crl.M.C. No. 2759/2021: The offences alleged are
under sections 511 of 376 and 354 of IPC, Sections 8 r/w 7, 17 r/w
16 of the POCSO Act. The petitioner is the accused No.4. The
accused No.1 is the stepfather of the victim. The accused No.2 is
the mother, and the accused No.3 is the poojari. The accused
No.4 is an astrologer. The prosecution allegation is that when the
victim was studying in 9th standard, the accused No.1 with the aid
and assistance of the accused Nos.2 and 3 brought her before the
accused No.4 for the purpose of black magic. Thereafter, the
accused No.4 insisted her to remove the clothes and sexually
harassed her by applying oil on her body. It is further alleged that
while the victim was studying in 10 th standard, accused No.4
again sexually harassed her. The perusal of the final report would
show that the accused No.1 continuously sexually harassed the
victim since she was 10-year-old till the complaint was lodged.
The accused No.2 who was supposed to give protection to the
victim aided the aforesaid act of the accused No.1. The accused
No.3 who is the poojari recommended the name of the accused
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 114 :-
No.4 to the accused Nos.1 and 2 and later the accused Nos.1 to 3
took her before the accused No.4 where he insisted her to
remove her upper clothes including undergarments and sexually
harassed her by applying and touching oil on her breast. These
allegations were clearly stated by the victim in the FIS as well as
in the statement recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C. When the
victim could not tolerate the sexual harassment of accused Nos.1
and 2, she left her home and complained the same to CWC and
thereafter crime was registered. The allegations are very serious
in nature. Hence, I am of the view that this is not a fit case for
settlement.
35. Crl.M. C. No. 5690/2021: The offence alleged are
under sections 377, 506 of IPC and Sections 3(c), 4, 7 and 8 of
the POCSO Act. The victim boy was aged 13 years at the time of
the incident. The allegation is that the accused, aged 57 years,
committed carnal intercourse against the order of the nature with
the victim boy on 21/8/2018 at 3.30 p.m. and further threatened
him that he would be killed if it was disclosed to anybody. Prima
facie there are materials to connect the accused with the crime.
Very serious and heinous allegations are levelled against the
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 115 :-
accused. It is alleged that after the boy was subjected to
unnatural sexual offence, the accused gave him `500/-. The
affidavit is seen filed by the father of the victim. There is nothing
on record to show that the settlement is in the best interest of the
victim child. There are also no circumstances to indicate that the
continuance of the criminal proceedings and the participation of
the victim in that proceedings would adversely affect the mental,
emotional, and educational well-being of the child. These kinds of
acts are to be presumed against the society at large and cannot
be the subject matter of compromise.
36. Crl.M.C. No. 6550/2018: The offences alleged are
under sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act, section 354A (1) of IPC
and section 23 of the Juvenile Justice Act. The prosecution
allegation is that when the victim went to the fancy shop near to
her school where the accused was employed, he touched her
chest, stomach, genital organ and kissed her cheek with sexual
intent. I went through the FIS. The allegations are very serious in
nature. At the time of the alleged incident, the victim was
studying in 6th standard. The affidavit is seen sworn in by the
father of the victim. There is nothing to show that the
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 116 :-
compromise is in the best interest of the victim. Hence, prayer for
quashing cannot be allowed.
In the light of the above findings, Crl.M.C.Nos.6550/2018,
2759/2021, 2870/2021, 5690/2021, 347/2022 and 424/2022
stand dismissed. Crl.M.C.Nos. 5076/2018, 4206/2019, 7885/2019,
7984/2019, 8810/2019, 3021/2020, 5531/2020, 5765/2020,
521/2021, 1363/2021, 1387/2021, 1439/2021, 1607/2021,
1764/2021, 1834/2021, 2321/2021, 3213/2021, 3482/2021,
3652/2021, 4771/2021, 4931/2021, 5734/2021, 6038/2021,
6299/2021, 6327/2021, 6430/2021, 6564/2021, 6718/2021,
69/2022, 84/2022, 127/2022, 138/2022, 279/2022, 366/2022,
408/2022, 445/2022, 455/2022, 466/2022, 533/2022 and
5288/2022 stand allowed. Consequently, all further proceedings
pursuant to the following FIR/cases are hereby quashed.
Sl. Case No. FIR/Cases
No.
1 Crl.M.C 5076/2018 Crime No. 727/2018 of Poochakkal Police Station
2 Crl.M.C 4206/2019 Crime No. 1045/2019 of Poonthura Police Station.
3 Crl.M.C 7885/2019 Crime No. 56/2019 of Areakkode Police Station.
4 Crl.M.C 7984/2019 Crime No. 661/2018 of Irinjalakkuda Police Station
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 117 :-
5 Crl.M.C 8810/2019 SC No. 907/2018 on the files of the Additional
Sessions Court (For the Trial of Cases relating to
Sexual violence against Women and Children),
Kozhikode arising from Crime No. 593/2017 of
Thamarassery Police Station.
6 Crl.M.C 3021/2020 SC No. 1032/2019 on the files of the 1 st Additional
Sessions Court, Palakkad arising from Crime No.
1260/2017 of Palakkad Town North Police Station.
7 Crl.M.C 5531/2020 Crime No. 1968/2020 of Malayinkeezhu Police
Station.
8 Crl.M.C 5765/2020 SC No. 717/2019 on the files of the 1 st Additional
Sessions Court, Thrissur arising from Crime No.
108/2019 of Kodakara Police Station.
9 Crl.M.C 521/2021 Crime No.863/2020 of Perinthalmanna Police Station
10 Crl.M.C 1363/2021 SC No. 199/2018 on the files of the Principal
Assistant Sessions Court, Irinjalakkuda arising
from Crime No. 578/2017 of Mathilakam Police
Station.
11 Crl.M.C 1387/2021 SC No. 1426/2018 of Additional Sessions Court (Cases
relating to the Atrocities and Sexual Offences against
Women and Children), Thiruvananthapuram arising
from Crime No. 631/2018 of Vizhinjam Police Station.
12 Crl.M.C 1439/2021 Crime No. 855/2020 of Perinthalmanna Police Station
13 Crl.M.C 1607/2021 Crime No. 6/2020 of Kalamassery Police Station.
14 Crl.M.C 1764/2021 SC No. 1043/2019 on the files of the Additional
Sessions Court (Special Court for the Trial of
offences under POCSO Act), Muvattupuzha arising
from Crime No. 1120/2019 of Piravam Police Station.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 118 :-
15 Crl.M.C 1834/2021 Crime No. 3403/2020 of Neyyattinkara Police
Station
16 Crl.M.C 2321/2021 SC No. 368/2020 on the files of the Special Court
for POCSO Cases, Ernakulam arising from Crime
No.115/2019 of Central Police Station, Ernakulam
17 Crl.M.C 3213/2021 SC No. 709/2020 on the files of the Fast Track
Special Court (FTSC) for the disposal of cases
registered under the POCSO Act, Koyilandi arising
from Crime No. 78/2018 of Perambra Police
Station.
18 Crl.M.C 3482/2021 SC No. 126/2019 on the files of the Additional
District & Sessions Judge I, Kasaragod arising
from Crime No. 353/2016 of Badiadka Police
Station.
19 Crl.M.C 3652/2021 SC No. 1181/2018 on the files of the Fast Track
Special Court, Neyyatinkara arising from Crime
No. 619/2018 of Vellarada Police Station.
20 Crl.M.C 4771/2021 ST No. 69/2021 on the files of the Juvenile Justice
Board, Malappuram arising from Crime No.
249/2018 of Kalpakancherry Police Station.
21 Crl.M.C 4931/2021 Crime No. 349/2020 of Vagamon Police Station
now pending as CP No. 6/2021 on the files of JFCM
I, Peerumedu.
22 Crl.M.C 5734/2021 Crime No. 1053/2021 of Vadakkancherry Police Station
23 Crl.M.C 6038/2021 SC No. 412/2021 on the files of the Fast Track
Special Court, Aluva arising from Crime No.
1993/2011 of Angamaly Police Station.
24 Crl.M.C 6299/2021 SC No. 544/2018 of Additional Special Court
(POCSO), Muvattupuzha arising from Crime No.
1833/2018 of Muvattupuzha Police Station.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 119 :-
25 Crl.M.C 6327/2021 Crime No. 364/2018 of Tirur Police Station now
pending as CP No. 102/2018 on the files of JFCM I,
Tirur.
26 Crl.M.C 6430/2021 Crime No. 863/2021 of Kathiroor Police Station.
27 Crl.M.C 6564/2021 Crime No. 244/2020 of Valiathura Police Station
28 Crl.M.C 6718/2021 Crime No. 729/2021 of Kozhikode Town Police
Station.
29 Crl.M.C 69/2022 SC 906/2021 on the files of the Additional District
and Sessions Court (For the Trial of Cases relating to
Atrocities and Sexual violence towards Women and
Children), Kozhikode arising from Crime No.
101/2021 of Kunnamangalam Police Station.
30 Crl.M.C 84/2022 SC No. 809/2020 on the files of 1st Additional
Sessions Judge Fast Track Special Court, Pattambi
arising from Crime No. 496/2020 of Ottapalam
Police Station.
31 Crl.M.C 127/2022 Crime No. 242/2018 of Kilikolloor Police Station.
32 Crl.M.C 138/2022 Crime No. 393/2018 of Tirur Police Station now
pending as LP No. 25/2021 on the files of JFCM I,
Tirur
33 Crl.M.C 279/2022 SC No.906/2021 on the files of the Additional
District and Sessions Court (For the Trial of Cases
relating to Atrocities and Sexual violence towards
Women and Children), Kozhikode arising from Crime
No. 101/2021 of Kunnamangalam Police Station.
34 Crl.M.C 366/2022 Crime No. 1600/2021 of Ernakulam Town North
Police Station.
35 Crl.M.C.408/2022 SC No.1741/2019 on the file of Fast Track Special
Court (POCSO), Neyyattinkara arising from Crime
No.605/2019 of Vilappilsala Police Station.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 120 :-
36 Crl.M.C 445/2022 SC No. 264/2021 on the files of the Fast Track
Special Court, Kunnamkulam arising from Crime
No. 1111/2020 of Chavakkad Police Station.
37 Crl.M.C 455/2022 SC No. 936/2021 on the files of the Fast Track
Court for POCSO Act cases (Additional Sessions
Court) Tirur arising from Crime No. 952/2020 of
Parappanangadi Police Station.
38 Crl.M.C 466/2022 SC No. 1245/2016 on the files of the Fast Track
Special Court, Neyyatinkara arising from Crime
No. 285/2015 of Malayinkeezhu Police Station.
39 Crl.M.C 533/2022 Crime No. 859/2021 of Panoor Police Station
40 Crl.M.C 5288/2022 Crime No.1420/2021 of Ernakulam Town North
Police Station.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
Rp
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 121 :-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5076/2018
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE-A1. CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.727/2018 OF POOCHAKAL POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE-A2. AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 122 :-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 69/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure I A TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT DATED 25/03/2021 IN CRIME NO.101
OF 2021 OF THE KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE
STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
Annexure II A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED
31/07/2021 IN CRIME NO.101 OF 2021 OF
THE KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
Annexure III A TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF WITNESSES IN
CRIME NO.101 OF 2021 OF THE
KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT.
Annexure IV A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED
04/01/2022 SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Annexure V A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
26/11/2021 IN CRL.M.C.NO.4011 OF 2021 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 123 :-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 84/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION
STATEMENT IN CRIME NO.496/2020 OF
OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION, PALAKAKD
DISTRICT.
Annexure B CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR IN CRIME
NO.496/2020 OF OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION.
Annexure C TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED
AND PENDING BEFORE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE FAST TRACK SPECIAL JUDGE,
PATTAMBI.
Annexure D TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE
DATED 16.02.2021.
Annexure E AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
31.12.2021.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 124 :-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 127/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
242/2018 OF KILIKOLLUR POLICE STATION.
Annexure 2 NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE DEFACTO
COMPLAINANT DATED 31.12.2021.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 125 :-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 138/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.393/2018 OF TIRUR POLICE STATION,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
Annexure A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET
IN CRIME NO.393/2018 FILED BEFORE THE
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I,
TIRUR.
Annexure A3 THE AFFIDAVIT, SOLEMNLY AFFIRMED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28/12/2021.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 126 :-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 279/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure I A TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT DATED 25.3.2021 IN CRIME NO.101
OF 2021 OF THE KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE
STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
Annexure II A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED
31.7.2021 IN CRIME NO. 101 OF 2021 OF
THE KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
Annexure III A TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF WITNESSES IN
CRIME NO.101 OF 2021 OF THE
KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT.
Annexure IV A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED
4.1.2022 SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure V A TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE
OF THE PETITIONER DATED 28.2.2013
Annexure VI A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.1.2022
IN CRL.M.C.NO.69 OF 2022 BEFORE THIS
HON'BLE COURT
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 127 :-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 347/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME NO.92/2020, NUMBERED AS
S.C.NO.51/2020 ON THE FILES OF HON'BLE
SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA
Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN OP (HMA)
NO.343/2020 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT,
PATHANAMTHITTA
Annexure 3 THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 31.12.2021 SWORN BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT/MOTHER OF THE
SURVIVOR
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 128 :-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 366/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. DATED 30.12.2021
IN CRIME NO.1600/2021 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN
NORTH POLICE STATION.
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.S. DATED 30.12.2021
GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE
ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION.
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF INTENDED
MARRIAGE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT CUM RECEIPT
FOR SPECIAL MARRIAGE DATED 12.1.2022
ISSUED BY THE REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT,
GOVT. OF KERALA.
Annexure A4 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 13.1.2022.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 129 :-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 445/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO. 1111/2020 OF THE CHAVAKKAD POLICE
STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
Annexure B THE TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE
CERTIFICATE, DATED 18/11/2020.
Annexure C A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 06/01/2022.
Annexure D A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 06/01/2022.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 130 :-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 408/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME NO.605/2019 OF VILAPPILSALA POLICE
STATION
Annexure B NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 131 :-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 424/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 THE TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.
3077/2019 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION,
DATED 15.12.2019 (KEPT IN SEALED COVER).
Annexure 2 THE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT REGARDING SETTLEMENT DATED
12.01.2022 (KEPT IN SEALED COVER).
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 132 :-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 466/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
S.C. NO. 1245/2016 ON THE FILE OF FAST
TRACK SPECIAL COURT, NEYYATTINKARA.
Annexure II THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 01/11/2021 SWORN BY
THIS PETITIONER.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 133 :-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 455/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COY OF THE FIR CRIME
NO.952/2020 OF PARAPPANANGADI POLICE
STATION.
Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COY OF THE CHARGE SHEET AND
MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE IN CRIME
NO.952/2020 OF PARAPPANANGADI POLICE
STATION.
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE
DATED 30.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE LOCAL
REGISTRAR PALLIKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT.
Annexure A4 THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 17.01.2022 SWORN IN
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT (DE-FACTO
COMPLAINANT).
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 134 :-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 533/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT IN CRIME NO.859/2021 OF PANOOR
POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT.
Annexure II TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 135 :-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 521/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.863/2020 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - I,
PERINTHALMANNA
ANNEXURE A2 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT DATED
25.1.2021
ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.680/2020 OF MARADU POLICE STATION
PENDING ON THE FILES OF THE
ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, (POCSO), ERNAKULAM
ANNEXURE A4 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT DATED
8/3/2021.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 136 :-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5690/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR DATED
28.08.2018 IN FIR IN CRIME NO.762/2018
OF BADAGARA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE.
Annexure A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT
IN FIR IN CRIME NO.762/2018 OF BADAGARA
POLICE STATION NUMBERED AS SC
NO.661/2020 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
SESSIONS FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT (FOR
POCSO CASES), KOZHIKODE.
Annexure A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT
ON 25.11.2020.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 137 :-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1363/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 578/2017 OF
MATHILAKAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
DISTRICT DATED 23.03.2017
ANNEXURE 2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT NO.
SC NO. 199/2018 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL
ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA.
ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 01.03.221.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 138 :-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1387/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME NO.631/2018 OF VIZHINJAM POLICE
STATION.
ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE MARRIAGE
CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF
THRIKKANNAPURAM SIVA TEMPLE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 19.12.2018
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY THE MARRIAGE OFFICER,
VENGANOOR DATED 13.2.20219
ANNEXURE A4 ORIGINAL COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE
3RD RESPONDENT.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 139 :-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1439/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR IN CRIME
NO.855/2020 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I,
PERINTHALMANNA.
ANNEXURE A2 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT DATED
8.3.21.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 140 :-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1607/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE-A1. TRUE COPY OF THE FIR AND FI STATEMENT IN
CRIME NO.6/2020 OF KALAMASSERY POLICE
STATION
ANNEXURE-A2. TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENTE IN CRIME NO.6/2020 OF
KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE-A3. TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE
DATED 4.1.2021
ANNEXURE-A4. AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE-A5. AFFIDAVIT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE-A6. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT IN CRL.M.C.NO.4247/2020 DATED
19.10.2020
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 141 :-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1764/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.1120/2019 OF PIRAVOM POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME NO.1120/2019 OF PIRAVOM POLICE
STATION.
ANNEXURE A3 THE AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT/VICTIM DATED 09.02.2021.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 142 :-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1834/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIS DATED
23.11.2020
ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO
3403/2020 REGISTERED BY THE
NEYYATTINKARA POLICE ON THE BASIS OF
ANNEXURE-A1
ANNEXURE A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL
STATEMENT MADE BY THE DEFACTO
COMPLAINANT ON 21.12.2020
ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ANTICIPATORY BAIL ORDER
DATED 26.2.2020 IN CRL.MC NO 2608/2020
BY THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-11,
THIRUANANTHAPURAM
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 143 :-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2321/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
S.C.368/2020 OF SPECIAL COURT FOR POCSO
CASES, ERNAKULAM.
ANNEXURE A2 AFFIDAVIT OF THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/2ND
RESPONDENT.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 144 :-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3021/2020
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT REGISTERED
BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TOWN NORTH
POLICE STATION PALAKKAD DATED
28.10.2019.
ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE
ISSUED BY THE MARRIAGE REGISTRAR ,
PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY DATED 12.12.2019.
ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 20.6.2020.
ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 20.6.2020.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 145 :-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2759/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.1342/2014 OF PAZHAYANNUR POLICE
STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT DATED
25.12.2014.
Annexure 2 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME NO.1342/2014 OF PAZHAYANNUR POLICE
STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT DATED
07.10.2017.
Annexure 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE SECTION 164 STATEMENT
OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT 11.03.2015.
Annexure 4 A NOTARIZED COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT 08.04.2021.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 146 :-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3213/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NUMBER
78/2018 DATED 11.02.2018 OF PERAMBRA
POLICE STATION.
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED
17.07.2020 IN SC NO.709/2020 IN THE FILE
OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT (FTSC) FOR
THE DISPOSAL OF CASES AND CASES
REGISTERED UNDER POCSO ACT, KOYILANDY,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE
PETITIONER.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 147 :-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2870/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT IN CR.NO.211/2021.
Annexure II TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 18.06.2021.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 148 :-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3482/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR DATED 9.7.2016
IN CRIME NO.353 OF 2016 OF BADIADKA
POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT AND
FIS.
Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED
20.9.2016 IN CRIME NO.353 OF 2016 OF
BADIADKA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD
DISTRICT.
Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED
5.7.2021 SIGNED BEFORE THE ADVOCATE
NOTARY BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2
Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED
5.7.2021 SIGNED BEFORE THE ADVOCATE
NOTARY BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3.
Annexure A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED
5.7.2021 SIGNED BEFORE THE ADVOCATE
NOTARY BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 149 :-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4206/2019
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION REPORT IN
CR NO. 1045/2019 OF POONTHURA POLICE
STATION.
ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE III CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.1045/2019 OF POONTHRA POLICE STATION
ANNEXURE IV TRUE COPY OF THE SELFIE PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE V TRUE COPY OF THE WHATSAPP MESSAGE AND
PHOTOGRAPH SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 150 :-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3652/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME NO. 619/2018 OF VELLARADA POLICE
STATION DATED 12.05.2018.
Annexure II CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME NO. 619/2018 OF VELLARADA POLICE
STATION DATED 29.08.2018.
Annexure III THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED
30.07.2021 EXECUTED BY THE SECOND
RESPONDENT.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 151 :-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4771/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL
REPORT/CHARGE SHEET.
Annexure A2 THE AFFIDAVIT SOLEMNLY AFFIRMED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT/VICTIM GIRL.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 152 :-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4931/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure I A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.349/2020 OF FORT POLICE STATION DATED
31.5.2020.
Annexure II THE TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE
CERTIFICATE.
Annexure III CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO.349/2020 OF VAGAMON POLICE STATION
DATED 28.2.2021.
Annexure IV TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 153 :-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5734/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.1053/2021
VADAKKENCHERRY POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD
ALONG WITH F. I STATEMENT.
Annexure B TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE
DATED 170.11.2021 ISSUED FROM GURUVAYUR
MUNICIPALITY.
Annexure C AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE DEFACTO
COMPLAINANT EVIDENCING THE FACTUM OF
SETTLEMENT.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 154 :-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5531/2020
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.1968/2020 OF MALAYINKEEZHU POLICE
STATION.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED
19.11.2020.
ANNEXURE A3 COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 155 :-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6038/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR IN CRIME 1993/2011
OF ANGAMALY POLICE STATION
Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
1993/11 OF ANGAMALY POLICE STATION FILED
BEFORE THE HON'BLE JFCM COURT ANGAMALY
Annexure A3 AFFIDAVIT DATED 29.10.2021 FILED BY THE
VICTIM/3RD RESPONDENT
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF HON'BLE
SUPREME COURT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO
1740/2019
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN CRL.MC 5276/2018
OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 156 :-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5765/2020
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.108 OF 2019
OF KODAKARA POLICE STATION DATED
21.02.2019.
ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO.108 OF 2019 OF KODAKARA POLICE
STATION DATED 03.10.2019.
ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 06.10.2020.
ANNEXURE 4 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 06.10.2020.
ANNEXURE 5 TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE OF
THE PETITIONER AND FIRST RESPONDENT
DATED 16.11.2020.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 157 :-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6327/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR IN CRIME
NO.364/2018 OF TIRUR POLICE
Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT
SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN CRIME
NO.364/2018
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY
THE THIRUNAVAYA DEVASWOM DATED
21.10.2019
Annexure A4 ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT DATED
09.12.2021
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 158 :-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6299/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure I TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN SC
NO.544/2018 OF ADDITIONAL SPECIAL COURT
(POCSO), MUVATTUPUZHA.
Annexure II TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE
DATED 10.01.2020 ISSUED BY THE SUB
REGISTRAR, MUVATTUPUZHA.
Annexure III AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
09.11.2021.
Annexure IV AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE FATHER OF THE
VICTIM, THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED
09.11.2021.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 159 :-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6430/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.863
OF 2021 OF THE KATHIROOR POLICE STATION,
KANNUR DISTRICT DATED 3.12.2021.
Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL M C
NO.5345 OF 2013 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE
COURT DATED 25.03.2014.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 160 :-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6550/2018
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
N.372/2015 OF THE TIRURANGADI POLICE
STATION, MALAPPURAM.
ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25.9.2018.
ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25.9.2018.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 161 :-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6564/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.244/2020 OF VALIATHURA POLICE
STATION.
Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE
DATED 7.10.2021 ISSUED BY MARRIAGE
OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN RESPECT
OF THE PETITIONER AND 3RD RESPONDENT.
Annexure 3 AFFIDAVIT DATED 18.12.2021 FILED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 162 :-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6718/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A COPY OF THE FIR DATED 20.10.2021 IN
CRIME NO.729 OF 2021 TOWN POLICE STATION
IN KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.11.2021
IN CRL.M.C. 1421/2021 BEFORE THE COURT
OF SESSION, KOZHIKODE.
Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 26.11.2021 IN
B.A.NO.8891/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE
OF THE PETITIONER AND THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
Annexure A5 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 163 :-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7885/2019
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIS AND FIR IN CRIME
NO.56/2015 OF ARECODE POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A2 THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 28/05/2019 SWORN IN
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT (DE-FACTO
COMPLAINANT).
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE APPOINTMENT
ISSUED BY THE PASSPORT SEVA KENDRA TO
THE 1ST PETITIONER
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 164 :-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7984/2019
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.661/2018 OF IRINJALAKUDA POLICE
STATION.
ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF FIS IN CRIME
NO.661/2018 OF IRINJALAKUDA POLICE
STATION DATED 11.09.2018.
ANNEXURE A3 A CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME NO.661/2018 OF IRINJALAKUDA POLICE
STATION.
ANNEXURE A4 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT
SHOWING THE TRANSACTIONS.
ANNEXURE A5 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENT
LETTER WITH REFERENCE TO THE ABOVE THREE
PERSONS GOING TO FRANCE.
ANNEXURE A6 A TRUE COPY OF THE WHATS APP MESSAGE FOR
THE RELEVANT FORM.
ANNEXURE A7 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE
MEDICO-LEGAL EXAMINATION OF SURVIVOR.
ANNEXURE A8 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN
B.A.NO.8386/2018 OF THIS HONORABLE COURT
DATED 19.12.2018.
ANNEXURE A9 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN
BA.NO.8386/2018 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT
DATED 08.01.2019.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 165 :-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 8810/2019
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.226/2017 OF THE THENHIPALAM POLICE
STATION.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.593/2017 OF THE THAMARASSERY POLICE
STATION.
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
S.C.NO.907/18 ON THE FILE OF ADDL.
SESSIONS (FOR THE TRIAL OF CASES
RELATING TO SEXUAL VIOLENCE AGAINST
WOMEN AND CHILDREN) COURT, KOZHIKODE.
ANNEXURE A4 AFFIDAVIT OF THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT /
2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A5 AN AGREEMENT DATED 31.10.2019 EXECUTED
BY THE PETITIONER AND THE FATHER OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE FIS DATED 31.7.17 IN
CRIME NO.226/2017 OF THE THENHIPALAM
POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL
STATEMENT OF THE VICTIM DATED 3.8.17
RECORDED IN THENHIPALAM POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND ADDITIONAL
STATEMENT OF THE VICTIM DATED 14.8.17
RECORDED IN THAMARASSERY POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL EXAMINATION
REPORT OF THE VICTIM DATED 3.8.17.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 166 :-
ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE
COURT IN CRL.M.C.NO.8037/19 DATED
15.11.19.
Crl.M.C.No.5076/2018 & conn.cases
-: 167 :-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5288/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.XXXX OF
THIRURANGADI POLICE STATION DATED XXX .
ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED
BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED
24.9.2022.
Annexure 3 TRUE COPY OF SUMMONS ISSUED TO THE 1ST
PETITIONER DATED 19.4.2023
