Kerala High Court
Jabbarudheen @ Jabbar vs State Of Kerala on 11 September, 2024
2024:KER:69811
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 20TH BHADRA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 2752 OF 2024
CRIME NO.365/2023 OF MEENAKSHIPURAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD
CP NO.12 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHITTUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
JABBARUDHEEN @ JABBAR
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O. YOUSUF, VAVVAKODE, VELAYODI POST, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN - 678103
BY ADVS.SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH
SRI.T.R.ANIL VENUGOPAL
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
MEENAKSHIPURAM POLICE STATION, MEENAKSHIPURAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678533
3 XXXXX
AGED XX YEARS
XXXXXXXXXX
R1 AND R2 BY SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RENJIT GEORGE
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.09.2024, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.2752 of 2024
2
2024:KER:69811
ORDER
Dated this the 11th day of September, 2024
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to
quash Annexure-A3 Final Report and all further proceedings
in C.P.No.12/2024 on the files of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court, Chittur arose out of Crime No.0365/2023
of Meenakshipuram Police Station, Palakkad. The petitioner
herein is the accused in the above case.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Public Prosecutor in detail. I have perused the
documents also.
3. In this case the prosecution alleges commission
of offences punishable under Sections 376 (1) and 376(2)
(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC').
2024:KER:69811
4. According to the learned counsel for the
petitioner, there is consensual relationship between the
petitioner and the defacto complainant and accordingly the
defacto complainant became pregnant and she delivered a
child. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner
though the defacto complainant is a widow, at the time of
starting the relationship, as per the statement given by the
defacto complainant itself and the petitioner herein is a
married man. Therefore, promise of marriage alleged as
the reason for sexual intercourse is not believable.
According to him, promise given by a married man to
marry another lady, though she is a widow, is not
believable, prima facie and therefore the relationship is
purely consensual. Therefore, none of the offences would
attract prima facie against the petitioner.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that
going by the statement, the defacto complainant is a widow
2024:KER:69811
and the accused is a married person. However, the accused
is a person following Muslim Personal Law and therefore he
could very well marry the defacto complainant also as his
second wife. Therefore there is no legal barrier to solemnize
the marriage as offered. In such view of the matter,
promise of marriage, consensual sexual relationship,
pregnancy and birth of a child as borne out from the
prosecution records would substantiate the offences alleged
to be committed by the accused, prima facie. In such a
case, quashment cannot be considered.
6. On perusal of the prosecution records, it appears
that the submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor
is having force. Since the petitioner follows Muslim
Personal Law, he could very well marry the defacto
complainant, who is otherwise eligible for re-marriage
being a widow. The statement given by the defacto
complainant would show that when the accused started the
2024:KER:69811
relationship, the defacto complainant expressed anxiety
regarding the same, but the petitioner assured marriage
and continued the relationship which led to birth of a child.
As per the DNA profiling report form part of the Final
Report, it was found that the petitioner is the biological
father of the child born to the defacto complainant. In such
a case, it could not be held at the pre trial stage that none
of the offences made out to quash the proceedings.
7. In view of the matter, the quashment cannot be
considered. Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case
stands dismissed.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to
the jurisdictional court concerned for information and
further steps.
Sd/-
A.BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
MJL
2024:KER:69811
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT DATED 17.06.2023 IN CRIME
NO.365/2023 OF MEENAKSHIPURAM POLICE
STATION
ANNEXURE A 2 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 14.9.2023
IN CRL. M.C. NO. 7351/2023 PASSED BY
THIS HONOURABLE COURT
ANNEXURE A 3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT
DATED 20.01.2024 IN CRIME NO.365/2023
OF MEENAKSHIPURAM POLICE STATION.
