Kerala High Court
Amal Tomy vs State Of Kerala on 16 October, 2023
CRL.MC NOS. 7057 OF 2023 & 6772 OF 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 24TH ASWINA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 7057 OF 2023
CRIME NO.180 OF 2018 OF KODAKARA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
DISTRICT
S.C.NO.770 OF 2021 ON THE FILE OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT
(POCSO), IRINJALAKUDA
PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:
AMAL TOMY,
AGED 24 YEARS,
AMBADAN HOUSE, KARAKUTTY DESAM, KARAKUTTY VILLAGE,
ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683 576.
BY ADV B.SABITHA (DESOM)
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KODAKARA POLICE STATION KODAKARA THRISSUR,
PIN - 680 684.
3 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
4 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
BY SRI VIPIN NARAYAN (SR PP)
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 16.10.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.6772/2022, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NOS. 7057 OF 2023 & 6772 OF 2022
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 24TH ASWINA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 6772 OF 2022
CRIME NO.180 OF 2018 OF KODAKARA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
DISTRICT
S.C.NO. 403 OF 2021 ON THE FILE OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL
COURT (POCSO), IRINJALAKUDA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
BY ADVS.
NEEMA NEERACKAL
SWATHY DAS
RESPONDENTS/STATE/VICTIM AND DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 680 683.
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KODAKARA POLICE STATION, KODAKARA THRISSUR,
PIN - 680 684.
3 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
4 ANTONY POULOSE,
AGED 84 YEARS, SON OF POULOSE NAMBADAN HOUSE
PUTHUKKAVU DESAM, KODAKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680 741.
BY ADVS.
SAIJO HASSAN
BENOJ C AUGUSTIN
RAFEEK. V.K.
AATHIRA SUNNY
BINCY JOB
AMBADI DINESH L.K.
SALMAN FARIS
SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN, SR.PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 16.10.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.7057/2023, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NOS. 7057 OF 2023 & 6772 OF 2022
3
ORDER
The petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.7057 of 2023 is the accused in
Crime No.180 of 2018 of Kodakara Police Station, Thrissur District,
which is now pending him as S.C.No.770 of 2021 on the file of Fast
Track Special Court (POCSO), Irinjalakuda. The petitioner in
Crl.M.C.No.6772 of 2022 is also an accused in Crime No.180 of 2018 of
Kodakara Police Station. The matter against the petitioner in
Crl.M.C.No.6772 of 2022 is now pending as S.C.No. 403 of 2021 on the
file of the Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Irinjalakuda. In S.C.No.
403 of 2021, the offences alleged are under Sections 363, 370 and
376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 read with Section
3(a), Section 6 read with Section 5(l) and Section 5(j)(ii) of the POCSO
Act, 2012. The allegations against the petitioner in S.C.No.770 of 2021
are under Sections 450 and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 4 read with Section 3(a) and Section 6 read with Section 5(l) of
the POCSO Act, 2012.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these
cases would submit that the issues between the petitioners and the de-
facto complainant (who is common in both cases) have been settled. It
is submitted that no useful purpose would be served by continuing
CRL.MC NOS. 7057 OF 2023 & 6772 OF 2022
with the proceedings against the petitioners in these cases in the light
of the settlement arrived at and also considering the fact that the
victim is unlikely to tender any evidence in favour of the prosecution.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that offences such
as rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be settled
and this is clear from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gian
Singh v. State of Punjab and Another[(2012) 10 SCC 303] and all other
decisions following in that judgment. It is submitted that in the facts of
the present case, the provisions of the POCSO Act are also involved,
which makes it practically impossible for this Court to accept
settlement as the victim is a minor.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the de-facto
complainant / victim in both cases would submit that the de-facto
complainant / victim does not intend to proceed the prosecution of
both cases. It is submitted that the victim is now a major and therefore,
her statement that she does not wish to continue with the prosecution
can be acted upon.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the
learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the
de-facto complainant, I am of the opinion that the petitioners cannot
be granted relief of quashing under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In Gian
CRL.MC NOS. 7057 OF 2023 & 6772 OF 2022
Singh (supra), it was held that cases of heinous nature like rape shall
not be quashed in exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Section
482 of the Cr.P.C. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners
would vehemently contend that the chances of a successful prosecution
are remote, I am of the opinion that the same cannot be a ground to
quash the proceedings in these cases as the allegations are those of
rape on the minor victim leading to commission of offences under the
POCSO Act as well. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners would submit that at least the trial of
both cases may be directed to be expedited.
6. Therefore, these cases are disposed of directing the Fast
Track Special Court (POCSO), Irinjalakuda to consider expeditious
disposal of S.C.No. 403 of 2021 and S.C.No.770 of 2021 pending
before that Court. The Trial Court endeavour to dispose of both
matters, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order. The evidence of the victim in both cases
shall be taken on the same day.
These Crl.M.Cs will stand disposed of as above.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
DK
