Kerala High Court
Ivin vs State Of Kerala on 21 June, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 2676 OF 2024
CRIME NO.862/2023 OF KADINAMKULAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
SC NO.2410 OF 2023 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT
(ATROCITIES & SEXUAL VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN &
CHILDREN),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
IVIN
AGED 41 YEARS
RESIDING AT MARIYA BHAVAN, CHOORAKUZHI, PUTHUKURICHI P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695303
BY ADV P.ANOOP (MULAVANA)
RESPONDENTS/STATE/DE FACTO COMPLAINANTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 YYY
YXY, PIN - 695304
3 XXX
AGED 50 YEARS
XYX, PIN - 695304
R1 BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RENJIT GEORGE
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.06.2024, THE COURT ON 21.6.2024 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL MC.NO.2676 OF 2024 2
CR
ORDER
Dated this the 21st day of June, 2024
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to
quash Annexure A1 FIR and Annexure A2 Final Report in
S.C.No.2410/2023 on the files of the Special Court under
the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for
short, 'the POCSO Act' hereinafter), Thiruvananthapuram,
arose out of Crime No.862/2023 of Kadinamkulam Police
Station, Thiruvananthapuram District.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Public Prosecutor. I have perused the relevant
records.
3. In this matter, the prosecution alleges commission
of offences punishable under Section 377 of the IPC,
Sections 3(a)(d) r/w Section 4(2), 5(l)(p) r/w Section 6, 7
r/w Section 8, 9(l)(p) r/w Section 10 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short, 'the POCSO Act'
hereinafter) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Amendment Act, 2015 (for short, 'the SC/ST Act'
hereinafter). The prosecution allegation is that, the
accused, who was the dance teacher of the victim, belongs
to Christian community (not Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe) brought the minor boy, who belongs to Hindu Panan
community of Scheduled Caste and subjected him for
carnal sexual intercourse on 01.09.2019. Thereafter, on a
day before 25.12.2019 and on several subsequent days, the
accused brought the boy to his rented house at
Pukayilathoppu and continued carnal sexual intercourse
with him. Later, on a Saturday, during October, 2021, the
accused brought the victim in a scooter, bearing
Registration No.KL 22 L 2667 to Vellanikkal Rock within
the limits of Pothencode police station and subjected him
for oral sex. The overt acts continued on several other
days till 2.7.2023. This is the base, on which, the
prosecution alleges commission of the above offences.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that the entire allegations are false and the matter
has been settled between the petitioner and respondent
Nos.2 and 3 and they filed Annexures A3 and A4 affidavits,
in support the settlement. Therefore, this matter would
require quashment, since the victim/aggrieved person has
no grievance in this matter.
5. Whereas, the learned Public Prosecutor would
submit that, repeated carnal sexual intercourse and oral
insertion against a minor boy, who belongs to Scheduled
Caste community, are the substratum, wherefrom the
accused alleged to have committed the above offences. In
a case involving offences under POCSO Act, the case
cannot be settled merely acting on the affidavit filed by the
mother of the victim and the victim himself, though he now
attained majority. It is also pointed out that settlement of
cases where the minor/minors is/are victim/victims, is not
permitted by law.
6. It is true that the Apex Court in catena of
decisions held that High Court can exercise its power
vested under section 482 Cr.P.C. beyond the scope of
Section 320 Cr.P.C. It is held that High Court can even
quash the proceedings relate to non-compoundable
offences on the basis of the compromise entered into
between the parties but at the same time Apex Court
sternly cautioned that the proceeding of serious and
heinous offences which affects the society at large, should
not be quashed on the basis of compromise executed
between the parties.
7. In a three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gian
Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, reported in
[(2012) 10 SCC 303], the Apex Court held that High
Court can quash the proceedings in the cases of non-
compoundable offences on the basis of settlement arrived
at between the parties and observed as under:-
"58. Where the High Court quashes a
criminal proceeding having regard to the fact
that the dispute between the offender and the
victim has been settled although the offences
are not compoundable, it does so as in its
opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings
will be an exercise in futility and justice in the
case demands that the dispute between the
parties is put to an end and peace is restored;
securing the ends of justice being the ultimate
guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which
have harmful effect on the public and consist in
wrongdoing that seriously endangers and
threatens the well-being of the society and it is
not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he
and the victim have settled the dispute amicably
or that the victim has been paid compensation,
yet certain crimes have been made
compoundable in law, with or without the
permission of the court. In respect of serious
offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other
offences of mental depravity under IPC or
offences of moral turpitude under special
statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or
the offences committed by public servants while
working in that capacity, the settlement between
the offender and the victim can have no legal
sanction at all. However, certain offences which
overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil
flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile,
commercial, financial, partnership or such like
transactions or the offences arising out of
matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or
the family dispute, where the wrong is basically
to the victim and the offender and the victim
have settled all disputes between them amicably,
irrespective of the fact that such offences have
not been made compoundable, the High Court
may within the framework of its inherent power,
quash the criminal proceeding or criminal
complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face
of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood
of the offender being convicted and by not
quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall
be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated.
The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive.
Each case will depend on its own facts and no
hard-and-fast category can be prescribed".
8. In Narinder Singh and Others v. State of
Punjab and Another reported in [(2014) 9 SCC 466],
the Supreme Court held that in case of heinous and serious
offences, which are generally to be treated as crime
against society, it is the duty of the State to punish the
offender. Hence, even when there is a settlement, the view
of the offender will not prevail since it is in the interest of
society that the offender should be punished to deter
others from committing a similar crime.
9. In the decision in Shimbhu v. State of Haryana
reported in [AIR 2014 Supreme Court 739] (three
Bench), the Apex Court in Paragraph Nos.21 and 22 held
as under:
21. Thus, the law on the issue can be
summarized to the effect that
punishment should always be
proportionate/commensurate to the
gravity of offence. Religion, race,
caste, economic or social status of the
accused or victim or the long pendency
of the criminal trial or offer of the
rapist to marry the victim or the victim
is married and settled in life cannot be
construed as special factors for
reducing the sentence prescribed by
the statute. The power under the
proviso should not be used
indiscriminately in a routine, casual
and cavalier manner for the reason
that an exception clause requires strict
interpretation.
22. Further, a compromise entered
into between the parties cannot be
construed as a leading factor based on
which lesser punishment can be
awarded. Rape is a non-compoundable
offence and it is an offence against the
society and is not a matter to be left
for the parties to compromise and
settle. Since the Court cannot always
be assured that the consent given by
the victim in compromising the case is
a genuine consent, there is every
chance that she might have been
pressurized by the convicts or the
trauma undergone by her all the years
might have compelled her to opt for a
compromise. In fact, accepting this
proposition will put an additional
burden on the victim. The accused
may use all his influence to pressurize
her for a compromise. So, in the
interest of justice and to avoid
unnecessary pressure/harassment to
the victim, it would not be safe in
considering the compromise arrived
at between the parties in rape cases
to be a ground for the Court to
exercise the discretionary power
under the proviso to Section 376(2) of
IPC.
10. In the decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v.
Madanlal reported in [AIR 2015 Supreme Court 3003]
(two Bench), the Apex Court considered a case involved
offences under Sections 354, 376(2)(f) and 511 of the IPC,
where the victim was a minor girl and held in Paragraph
No.16 as under:
16. We would like to clearly state that in a
case of rape or attempt of rape, the
conception of compromise under no
circumstances can really be thought of.
These are crimes against the body of a
woman which is her own temple. These are
offences which suffocate the breath of life
and sully the reputation. And reputation,
needless to emphasise, is the richest jewel
one can conceive of in life. No one would
allow it to be extinguished. When a human
frame is defiled, the "purest treasure", is
lost. Dignity of a woman is a part of her
non-perishable and immortal self and no
one should ever think of painting it in clay.
There cannot be a compromise or
settlement as it would be against her
honour which matters the most. It is
sacrosanct. Sometimes solace is given that
the perpetrator of the crime has acceded
to enter into wedlock with her which is
nothing but putting pressure in an adroit
manner; and we say with emphasis that
the Courts are to remain absolutely away
from this subterfuge to adopt a soft
approach to the case, for any kind of
liberal approach has to be put in the
compartment of spectacular error. Or to
put it differently, it would be in the realm
of a sanctuary of error. We are compelled
to say so as such an attitude reflects lack
of sensibility towards the dignity, the elan
vital, of a woman. Any kind of liberal
approach or thought of mediation in this
regard is thoroughly and completely sans
legal permissibility. It has to be kept in
mind, as has been held in Shyam Narain v.
State (NCT of Delhi) that:
"Respect for reputation of women
in the society shows the basic
civility of a civilised society. No
member of society can afford to
conceive the idea that he can
create a hollow in the honour of a
woman. Such thinking is not only
lamentable but also deplorable. It
would not be an exaggeration to
say that the thought of sullying the
physical frame of a woman is the
demolition of the accepted civilised
norm i.e. "physical morality". In
such a sphere, impetuosity has no
room. The youthful excitement has
no place. It should be paramount in
everyone's mind that, on the one
hand, society as a whole cannot
preach from the pulpit about
social, economic and political
equality of the sexes and, on the
other, some perverted members of
the same society dehumanise the
woman by attacking her body and
ruining her chastity. It is an assault
on the individuality and inherent
dignity of a woman with the
mindset that she should be
elegantly servile to men."
11. The Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in the
case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai
Karmur and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another
reported in [(2017) 9 SCC 641], after discussing its
earlier judgments observed as under:
"16. The broad principles which emerge from
the precedents on the subject, may be
summarised in the following propositions:
16(1). Section 482 preserves the
inherent powers of the High Court to
prevent an abuse of the process of any
court or to secure the ends of justice.
The provision does not confer new
powers. It only recognises and
preserves powers which inhere in the
High Court.
16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction
of the High Court to quash a first
information report or a criminal
proceeding on the ground that a
settlement has been arrived at
between the offender and the victim is
not the same as the invocation of
jurisdiction for the purpose of
compounding an offence. While
compounding an offence, the power of
the court is governed by the provisions
of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. The power to quash
under Section 482 is attracted even if
the offence is non-compoundable.
16.3. In forming an opinion whether a
criminal proceeding or complaint
should be quashed in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Section 482, the
High Court must evaluate whether the
ends of justice would justify the
exercise of the inherent power.
16.4. While the inherent power of the
High Court has a wide ambit and
plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to
secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to
prevent an abuse of the process of any
court.
16.5. The decision as to whether a
complaint or first information report
should be quashed on the ground that
the offender and victim have settled
the dispute, revolves ultimately on the
facts and circumstances of each case
and no exhaustive elaboration of
principles can be formulated.
16.6. In the exercise of the power
under Section 482 and while dealing
with a plea that the dispute has been
settled, the High Court must have due
regard to the nature and gravity of the
offence. Heinous and serious offences
involving mental depravity or offences
such as murder, rape and dacoity
cannot appropriately be quashed
though the victim or the family of the
victim have settled the dispute. Such
offences are, truly speaking, not
private in nature but have a serious
impact upon society. The decision to
continue with the trial in such cases is
founded on the overriding element of
public interest in punishing persons for
serious offences.
16.7. As distinguished from serious
offences, there may be criminal cases
which have an overwhelming or
predominant element of a civil dispute.
They stand on a distinct footing insofar
as the exercise of the inherent power
to quash is concerned.
16.8. Criminal cases involving offences
which arise from commercial, financial,
mercantile, partnership or similar
transactions with an essentially civil
flavour may in appropriate situations
fall for quashing where parties have
settled the dispute.
16.9. In such a case, the High Court
may quash the criminal proceeding if in
view of the compromise between the
disputants, the possibility of a
conviction is remote and the
continuation of a criminal proceeding
would cause oppression and prejudice;
and
16.10. There is yet an exception to the
principle set out in propositions 16.8.
and 16.9. above. Economic offences
involving the financial and economic
well-being of the State have
implications which lie beyond the
domain of a mere dispute between
private disputants. The High Court
would be justified in declining to quash
where the offender is involved in an
activity akin to a financial or economic
fraud or misdemeanour. The
consequences of the act complained of
upon the financial or economic system
will weigh in the balance.
12. The Three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in
State of Madhya Pradesh V. Laxmi Narayan & Ors.
reported in [(2019) 5 SCC 688] laid down the following
principles:-
15. Considering the law on the point and the
other decisions of this Court on the point,
referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held
as under:
15.1. That the power conferred under
Section 482 of the Code to quash the
criminal proceedings for the non-
compoundable offences under Section
320 of the Code can be exercised
having overwhelmingly and
predominantly the civil character,
particularly those arising out of
commercial transactions or arising out
of matrimonial relationship or family
disputes and when the parties have
resolved the entire dispute amongst
themselves;
15.2. Such power is not to be exercised
in those prosecutions which involved
heinous and serious offences of mental
depravity or offences like murder, rape,
dacoity, etc. Such offences are not
private in nature and have a serious
impact on society;
15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be
exercised for the offences under the
special statutes like the Prevention of
Corruption Act or the offences
committed by public servants while
working in that capacity are not to be
quashed merely on the basis of
compromise between the victim and the
offendor;
15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC
and the Arms Act, etc. would fall in the
category of heinous and serious
offences and therefore are to be treated
as crime against the society and not
against the individual alone, and
therefore, the criminal proceedings for
the offence under Section 307 IPC
and/or the Arms Act, etc. which have a
serious impact on the society cannot be
quashed in exercise of powers under
Section 482 of the Code, on the ground
that the parties have resolved their
entire dispute amongst themselves.
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
framing 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 vital/delicate parts of
the body, nature of weapons used, etc.
However, such an exercise by the High
Court would be permissible only after
the evidence is collected after
investigation and the charge-sheet is
filed/charge is framed and/or during the
trial. Such exercise is not permissible
when the matter is still under
investigation. Therefore, the ultimate
conclusion in paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the
decision of this Court in Narinder Singh
(supra) should be read harmoniously
and to be read as a whole and in the
circumstances stated hereinabove;
15.5. While exercising the power under
Section 482 of the Code to quash the
criminal proceedings in respect of non-
compoundable offences, which are
private in nature and do not have a
serious impact on society, on the ground
that there is a settlement/compromise
between the victim and the offender,
the High Court is required to consider
the antecedents of the accused; the
conduct of the accused, namely,
whether the accused was absconding
and why he was absconding, how he
had managed with the complainant to
enter into a compromise, etc.
13. The Apex Court in the case of Arun Singh and
Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh Through its
Secretary and Another reported in [(2020) (3) SCC
736], held as under:-
14. In another decision in Narinder Singh
v. State of Punjab (supra) it has been observed
that in respect of offence against the society it
is the duty to punish the offender. Hence, even
where there is a settlement between the
offender and victim the same shall not prevail
since it is in interests of the society that
offender should be punished which acts as
deterrent for others from committing similar
crime. On the other hand, there may be
offences falling in the category where the
correctional objective of criminal law would
have to be given more weightage than the
theory of deterrent punishment. In such cases,
the court may be of the opinion that a
settlement between the parties would lead to
better relations between them and would
resolve a festering private dispute and thus
may exercise power under Section 482 CrPC
for quashing the proceedings or the complaint
or the FIR as the case may be.
14. The Apex Court in case of Ram Gopal &
Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in
[(2021 0 Supreme (SC) 529)] had occasioned to discuss
the issue and observed in paragraph No.14 as under:
14. In other words, grave or serious
offences or offences which involve moral
turpitude or have a harmful effect on the social
and moral fabric of the society or involve
matters concerning public policy, cannot be
construed betwixt two individuals or groups
only, for such offences have the potential to
impact the society at large. Effacing
abominable offences through quashing process
would not only send a wrong signal to the
community but may also accord an undue
benefit to unscrupulous habitual or professional
offenders, who can secure a "settlement"
through duress, threats, social boycotts, bribes
or other dubious means. It is well said that "let
no guilty man escape, if it can be avoided."
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision
Daxaben v. The State of Gujarat & others reported in
[2022 LiveLaw (SC) 642] stated as under:
38. However, before exercising its power
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash an
FIR, criminal complaint and/or criminal
proceedings, the High Court, as observed
above, has to be circumspect and have due
regard to the nature and gravity of the offence.
Heinous or serious crimes, which are not
private in nature and have a serious impact on
society cannot be quashed on the basis of a
compromise between the offender and the
complainant and/or the victim. Crimes like
murder, rape, burglary, dacoity and even
abetment to commit suicide are neither private
nor civil in nature. Such crimes are against the
society. In no circumstances can prosecution be
quashed on compromise, when the offence is
serious and grave and falls within the ambit of
crime against society.
39. Orders quashing FIRs and/or
complaints relating to grave and serious
offences only on basis of an agreement with the
complainant, would set a dangerous precedent,
where complaints would be lodged for oblique
reasons, with a view to extract money from the
accused. Furthermore, financially strong
offenders would go scot free, even in cases of
grave and serious offences such as murder,
rape, bride-burning, etc. by buying off
informants/complainants and settling with
them. This would render otiose provisions such
as Sections 306, 498A, 304-B etc. incorporated
in the IPC as a deterrent, with a specific social
purpose.
40. In Criminal Jurisprudence, the
position of the complainant is only that of the
informant. Once an FIR and/or criminal
complaint is lodged and a criminal case is
started by the State, it becomes a matter
between the State and the accused. The State
has a duty to ensure that law and order is
maintained in society. It is for the state to
prosecute offenders. In case of grave and
serious non-compoundable offences which
impact society, the informant and/or
complainant only has the right of hearing, to
the extent of ensuring that justice is done by
conviction and punishment of the offender. An
informant has no right in law to withdraw the
complaint of a non-compoundable offence of a
grave, serious and/or heinous nature, which
impacts society.
16. The Supreme Court in the case of P.Dharmraj v.
Shanmugam and others decided on 8th September 2022
in Crl.Appeal Nos.1515-1516 of 2022, after discussing in
earlier judgments, observed in paragraph No.42 as under:
"Thus it is clear from the march of law that the
Court has to go slow even while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC or Article
226 of the Constitution in the matter of
quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis
of a settlement reached between the parties,
when the offences are capable of having an
impact not merely on the complainant and the
accused but also on Others."
17. Thus, the law emerges is that, in respect of
serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other
offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral
turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of
Corruption Act or the offences committed by public
servants while working in that capacity, the settlement
between the offender and the victim can have no legal
sanction at all. In a case of rape or attempt of rape, the
conception of compromise under no circumstances can
really be thought of. These are crimes against the body of a
woman which is her own temple. These are offences which
suffocate the breath of life and sully the reputation. And
reputation, needless to emphasise, is the richest jewel one
can conceive of in life. No one would allow it to be
extinguished. When a human frame is defiled, the "purest
treasure", is lost. Dignity of a woman is a part of her non-
perishable and immortal self and no one should ever think
of painting it in clay. There cannot be a compromise or
settlement as it would be against her honour which matters
the most. It is sacrosanct. Sometimes solace is given that
the perpetrator of the crime has acceded to enter into
wedlock with her which is nothing but putting pressure in
an adroit manner; and that the Courts are to remain
absolutely away from this subterfuge to adopt a soft
approach to the case, for any kind of liberal approach has
to be put in the compartment of spectacular error. Or to
put it differently, it would be in the realm of a sanctuary of
error. Such an attitude reflects lack of sensibility towards
the dignity, the elan vital, of a woman. Any kind of liberal
approach or thought of mediation in this regard is
thoroughly and completely sans legal permissibility.
Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or
offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot
appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of
the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly
speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact
upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such
cases is founded on the overriding element of public
interest in punishing persons for serious offences. In other
words, grave or serious offences or offences which involve
moral turpitude or have a harmful effect on the social and
moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning
public policy, cannot be construed betwixt two individuals
or groups only, for such offences have the potential to
impact the society at large. Effacing abominable offences
through quashing process would not only send a wrong
signal to the community, but may also accord an undue
benefit to unscrupulous habitual or professional offenders,
who can secure a "settlement" through duress, threats,
social boycotts, bribes or other dubious means. It is well
said that "let no guilty man escape, if it can be avoided."
18. Thus, the law as it stands is that although High
Court can invoke its jurisdiction u/s.482 Cr.P.C. even in non-
compoundable offence and can quash the proceedings on
the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties even
in the cases of non-compoundable offences but while
exercising its jurisdiction this Court must consider the fact
that whether the proceeding relates to any serious and
heinous offences and whether the crime in question has
impact over the society. In cases of serious nature which
affects the society at large this Court should not exercise
its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the
proceedings on the basis of compromise executed between
the parties.
19. In the present case, sexual assault against a
minor, which led to registration of crime under Section 377
of the IPC, the relevant sections of the POCSO Act and
under the provisions of the SC/ST Act, sought to be quashed
merely on the ground of settlement. Since the law does not
permit so, quashment sought for, is liable to fail.
Accordingly, this petition also must fail.
In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case stands
dismissed.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
Bb
APPENDIX OF CRL MC.NO.2676 OF 2024
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.862/2023 OF KADINAMKULAM POLICE
STATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
ANNEXURE A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT
PENDING AS SC NO.2410/2023 BEFORE THE
ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (POCSO)
ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES : NIL
