Kerala High Court
Shaji V.S vs State Of Kerala on 17 October, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Crl.M.C. No.6915 of 2018
1
2024:KER:77567
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 25TH ASWINA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 6915 OF 2018
CRIME NO.442/2016 OF KOTTAYAM EAST POLICE STATION,
KOTTAYAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.222 OF
2017 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT -
IV, KOTTAYAM / II ADDITIONAL MACT, KOTTAYAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SHAJI V.S.
AGED 56 YEARS, S/O SUKUMARAN, MALIYIL HOUSE,
THIRUVATHUKKAL BAGOM, KARAPUZHA, KOTTAYAM
VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM,
BY ADV GIKKU JACOB
RESPONDENTS/ STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA - 682 031. REPRESENTING THROUGH
STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KOTTAYAM EAST POLICE
STATION, KOTTAYAM DIST.
2 GIRIJA KRISHNANKUTTY
AGED 47 YEARS, W/O KRISHNANKUTTY, KOTHATTU
Crl.M.C. No.6915 of 2018
2
2024:KER:77567
KIZHAKKEPURAYIL HOUSE, VELLOR P.O.,
PAMPADY, KOTTAYAM-686 024.
BY ADVS.:
SRI.RENJITH.T.R, SR.PP
SRI. MANSOOR.B.H.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 17.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C. No.6915 of 2018
3
2024:KER:77567
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
----------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.6915 of 2018
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of October, 2024
ORDER
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed to quash
the proceedings in SC No.222/2017 on the file of
Additional Sessions Court-IV, Kottayam. The above
case is charge sheeted against the petitioner alleging
offences punishable under Section 376 of IPC.
2. The crux of the allegation is that the accused
had sexual relationship with the victim from 2010
onwards, promising that he will marry the victim. The
petitioner withdrawn from the promise and hence, it is
alleged that the accused committed the offence.
According to the petitioner, even if the entire
2024:KER:77567
allegations are accepted, no offence is made out
against the petitioner.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. When this Crl.MC came up for consideration,
the counsel appearing for the petitioner and the 2 nd
respondent submitted that the entire dispute between
the petitioner and the 2nd respondent are settled and
the 2nd respondent has no objection in quashing the
proceedings against the petitioner. The 2 nd respondent
filed an affidavit also to the effect that she has no
objection in quashing the proceedings. Annexure-B is
the affidavit.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor, after getting
instruction through the investigating officer, submitted
that the matter is settled. But, simply because the
matter is settled, the case in which the offence under
Section 376 IPC is alleged cannot be quashed.
2024:KER:77567
Therefore, this Court has to consider the matter on
merit. This Court anxiously considered the final report
and the documents produced along with the final
report. This Court also perused the first information
statement given by the victim. A perusal of the same
would show that, the defacto complainant had already
married and without getting divorce, she had sexual
relationship with the petitioner. It is stated by her that
from 2010 to 2016 that relationship continued based on
a promise from the petitioner that he will marry her.
Admittedly, the victim married at that time and she had
not obtained any divorce. In such circumstances, it is
clear that, there cannot be any legal marriage between
the petitioner and the victim.
6. According to the victim, she was not aware
that the petitioner married earlier. Even if that is
accepted, there cannot be any legal marriage between
2024:KER:77567
the petitioner and the victim because the victim already
married and she had not obtained divorce. Even as per
the statement, after the misunderstanding with the
petitioner, the victim went to the house of her former
husband and he refused to accept her and thereafter,
this complaint is filed. That itself shows that the
offence under Section 376 IPC is not attracted and even
if the entire allegations are accepted, the sexual
relationship between the petitioner and the victim are
with consensus. In such circumstances, the offence
under Section 376 IPC is not made out. Moreover, the
2nd respondent also submitted that, she has no
objection in quashing the proceedings against the
petitioner. If that be the case, the prosecution against
the petitioner is not necessary.
Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is
allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner
2024:KER:77567
in SC No.222/2017 on the file of Additional Sessions
Court IV - Kottayam, arising from Crime No.442/2016 of
Kottayam East Police Station are quashed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
nvj JUDGE
2024:KER:77567
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME
NO.442/2016 OF KOTTAYAM EAST POLICE
STATION.
ANNEXURE B AFFIDAVIT OF SECOND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL
//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE
