Kerala High Court
Xxxxxx vs State Of Kerala on 2 April, 2025
2025:KER:30289
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 6880 OF 2022
CRIME NO.466/2019 OF Santhanpara Police Station, Idukki
AGAINST SC NO.213 OF 2020 OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT,
KATTAPPANA (POCSO)
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
XX
XX
BY ADVS.
S.RAJEEV
V.VINAY
M.S.ANEER
SARATH K.P.
PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH
ANILKUMAR C.R.
RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
(CRIME NO.466/2019 OF SANTHAMPARA POLICE STATION,
IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685508)
2 YY
YY
BY ADV.ANAND KALYANAKRISHNAN
ADV.E.C. BINEESH - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.04.2025, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.7427/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.Nos. 6880 of 2022 and 7427 of 2024
..2.. 2025:KER:30289
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 7427 OF 2024
CRIME NO.63/2020 OF Karinkunnam Police Station, Idukki
AGAINST SC NO.212 OF 2020 OF SPECIAL COURT UNDER
POCSO ACT, IDUKKI
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
BY ADVS.
BOBBY GEORGE
BABY SIMON
JOY C. PAUL
ABHILASH MURALEEDHARAN
NOBLE GEORGE
MADHU V.
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682031
2 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
SRI. C.N. PRABHAKARAN-SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.04.2025, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.6880/2022, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.Nos. 6880 of 2022 and 7427 of 2024
..3.. 2025:KER:30289
"C.R."
COMMON ORDER
Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2025
Two separate independent criminal cases are sought to be
quashed on the strength of settlement between the parties.
Since both these cases involve offences under the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012,
('POCSO Act' for short) - the quashment of which on the
basis of settlement being a debatable proposition - this
Court choose to dispose of both matters by virtue of a
Common Order, as the parameters for consideration are
common.
2. The relevant facts may be summarized thus:
Crl.M.C.No.6880/2022:- Petitioner herein is the sole
accused in Crime No.466/2019 of Shanthanpara Police
Station, now pending as S.C.No.213/2020 before the Fast
Track Special Court (POCSO), Kattappana. The offences
alleged are under Section 376 of the Penal Code and under
Crl.M.C.Nos. 6880 of 2022 and 7427 of 2024
..4.. 2025:KER:30289
Section 3(a), read with Section 4 and 5(ii)(j) and (l),
read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution
would allege that the petitioner/accused, with the
necessary animus, had committed penetrative sexual assault
on the victim, a minor girl, repeatedly during the period
from 22.12.2018 till 24.12.2018 and thereafter, at a
different house on 11.09.2019, pursuant to which the
victim became pregnant, thus committing the offences
enumerated above.
Crl.M.C.No.7427/2024:- Petitioner herein is the sole
accused in Crime No.63/2020 of Karinkunnam Police Station,
Idukki, now pending as S.C.No.212/2020 before the Special
Court (POCSO), Idukki. The offences alleged are under
Sections 363, 366(A), 370 and 376(2)(n) of the Penal Code
and also under Section 4, read with Section 3(a);
Sections 5(l) and 5(j)(ii), read with Section 6 of the
POCSO Act. The prosecution would allege that the
petitioner/accused, with the necessary animus, have
enticed the victim girl, aged 17 years, from her lawful
Crl.M.C.Nos. 6880 of 2022 and 7427 of 2024
..5.. 2025:KER:30289
guardianship by June 2017 and committed penetrative sexual
assault on her during the period from May 2019 to
September 2019, repeatedly, with the result, the victim
became pregnant. On 09.02.2020, the petitioner/accused
contacted the victim on several occasions and kidnapped
her by about 3:30 p.m. in his scooter. The prosecution
would also allege that the victim gave birth to a baby
girl, thus committing the offences enumerated above.
3. A common facet of both these cases is that the
respective petitioner/accused have married the victim girl
after the registration of the crime, upon the respective
minors attaining majority. In Crl.M.C.No.6880/2022,
Annexure-VI is the marriage certificate, while it is
Annexure-A3 in Crl.M.C.No.7427/2024. In both these cases,
the respective petitioners seek quashment on the strength
of amicable settlement with the victim girls, as also,
their parents. In Crl.M.C.No.6880/2024, Annexure-V is the
affidavit sworn to by the defacto complainant/victim,
Crl.M.C.Nos. 6880 of 2022 and 7427 of 2024
..6.. 2025:KER:30289
wherein she would swear that she had decided to marry the
petitioner upon attaining majority (at the time of
swearing the affidavit the marriage had not taken place);
that the families of both the petitioner and victim have
accepted the relationship; and that the defacto
complainant/victim has no objection in quashing all
further proceedings in that crime. A similar affidavit is
sworn to by the defacto complainant/victim in
Crl.M.C.No.7427/2024, produced at Annexure-A6, wherein she
would swear that the petitioner/accused is her husband and
that their marriage was solemnized on 24.01.2020 at a
temple, in accordance with the religious rites. It is also
stated that in that wedlock, they have a girl child by
name Theertha, then studying at LKG and further, that the
deponent/victim is again pregnant. The deponent would also
state that she has been sent for B.Sc Nursing course by
the petitioner, and he is taking care of the four year old
child. According to the victim, the crime was filed on the
basis of misunderstanding and that she has no surviving
Crl.M.C.Nos. 6880 of 2022 and 7427 of 2024
..7.. 2025:KER:30289
grievance against the petitioner/accused, inasmuch as the
subject matter of the Sessions Case concerned is fully
settled by and between them.
4. Apart from the affidavits sworn to by the victim
girls, this Court directed the Investigating Officers
concerned to record the statement of the victim pursuant
to the filing of the above-referred Criminal Miscellaneous
Cases. The facts sworn to in the respective affidavits
were reiterated by the respective victims in such
statements of the victims given before the Investigating
Officer. It is on the basis of the above factual
parameters that this Court has been called upon to quash
the crime, the final report, and also all further
proceedings on the strength of the settlement between the
parties.
5. Having regard to the importance of the common issues
involved in a batch of cases, this Court appointed
Crl.M.C.Nos. 6880 of 2022 and 7427 of 2024
..8.. 2025:KER:30289
Smt. A. Parvathi Menon as Amicus Curiae. Learned Amicus
gave a preliminary report before this Court dated
11.12.2024 touching upon the various aspects of the issue,
including the legal as well as the societal point of view,
which report is of considerable assistance to this Court
in resolving the issues involved in these cases.
6. The quashment sought for under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on
the strength of the settlement between the parties has
always vexed the Court, and several landmark judgments
have been rendered in this regard, including the State of
Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others [1992 SCC
(Cri) 426] and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another
[(2012) 10 SCC 303]. In Gian Singh (supra), it was held
that the inherent power under Section 482 is not limited
by Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that
the High Court can quash the proceedings in respect of
non-compoundable offences, provided it serves the ends of
justice. However, compounding of serious and heinous
Crl.M.C.Nos. 6880 of 2022 and 7427 of 2024
..9.. 2025:KER:30289
offences, which impact the society at large was frowned
upon by the three Judges Bench in Gian Singh (supra).The
conclusions in Gian Singh (supra) in Paragraph no.61 are
extracted here-below:
"61. The position that emerges from the above
discussion can be summarised thus : the power of
the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding
or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction is distinct and different from the
power given to a criminal court for compounding
the offences under Section 320 of the Code.
Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no
statutory limitation but it has to be exercised
in accord with the guideline engrafted in such
power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any
Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal
proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised
where the offender and victim have settled their
dispute would depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case and no category can be
prescribed. However, before exercise of such
power, the High Court must have due regard to the
nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and
serious offences of mental depravity or offences
like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be
Crl.M.C.Nos. 6880 of 2022 and 7427 of 2024
..10.. 2025:KER:30289
fittingly quashed even though the victim or
victim's family and the offender have settled the
dispute. Such offences are not private in nature
and have serious impact on society. Similarly,
any compromise between the victim and offender in
relation to the offences under special statutes
like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences
committed by public servants while working in
that capacity etc.; cannot provide for any basis
for quashing criminal proceedings involving such
offences. But the criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour
stand on different footing for the purposes of
quashing, particularly the offences arising from
commercial, financial, mercantile, civil,
partnership or such like transactions or the
offences arising out of matrimony relating to
dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the
wrong is basically private or personal in nature
and the parties have resolved their entire
dispute. In this category of cases, High Court
may quash criminal proceedings if in its view,
because of the compromise between the offender
and victim, the possibility of conviction is
remote and bleak and continuation of criminal
case would put accused to great oppression and
prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused
to him by not quashing the criminal case despite
Crl.M.C.Nos. 6880 of 2022 and 7427 of 2024
..11.. 2025:KER:30289
full and complete settlement and compromise with
the victim. In other words, the High Court must
consider whether it would be unfair or contrary
to the interest of justice to continue with the
criminal proceeding or continuation of the
criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of
process of law despite settlement and compromise
between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to
secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate
that criminal case is put to an end and if the
answer to the above question(s) is in
affirmative, the High Court shall be well within
its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceeding."
7. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the
legal position as regards quashment of offences under the
POCSO Act in Ramji Lal Bairwa and Another v. State of
Rajasthan and Others [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3193]. Frowning
upon the quashment of offences under POCSO Act based on
the settlement between the parties, the Supreme Court held
that in the nature of cases before the Supreme Court, the
compromise between the parties, or the fact that there
exists a remote and bleak chance of conviction, cannot be
Crl.M.C.Nos. 6880 of 2022 and 7427 of 2024
..12.. 2025:KER:30289
a ground to abruptly terminate the investigation by
quashing the F.I.R. and further proceedings thereto, by
invoking the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The
legal position in Gian Singh (supra) that the powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be used to quash proceedings
based on compromise, if it is in respect of heinous
offences, which are not of a private nature, and having
serious impact on the society, is seen reiterated.
However, it is relevant in this regard to take note of the
factual premise based upon which the above dictum was laid
down. In Ramji Lal (supra), the attendant facts
constituting the prosecution allegation is to the
following effect:
On 06.01.2022, the victim child, who was then a student of
class XI in Higher Secondary, was alone in the classroom.
The 3rd respondent, a teacher, came there and after
ensuring that there is no one else in the classroom, he
reached behind the victim, patted on her cheeks and put
his hands inside her bodice and rubbed her breast. When
Crl.M.C.Nos. 6880 of 2022 and 7427 of 2024
..13.. 2025:KER:30289
the victim got up and ran away, the accused followed to
stop her. Though the victim sought for help of other
teachers, there was no positive response. In the
meanwhile, one teacher came to the victim's residence, and
when her mother reached the school, she found the victim
in a deadly, terrified and numbed state. The child was not
in a position to say anything to her mother. Upon reaching
home, she divulged the incident to the mother, pursuant to
which the F.I.R. was lodged.
8. Needless to say that the factual situation is quite
different from the facts at hand. In Ramji Lal (supra), a
teacher had made sexual advancements to his pupil,
constituting offences under the POCSO Act; whereas in the
instant facts before me, there was a relationship between
the petitioner and the accused, which led to physical
relationship, followed by the marriage of the
petitioner/accused and the defacto complainant/victim.
Crl.M.C.Nos. 6880 of 2022 and 7427 of 2024
..14.. 2025:KER:30289
9. This Court will now address the views of the various
High Courts in this regard. I will begin with the judgment
of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Vishnu v.
State of Kerala [2023 (3) KLT 754]. After making a
thorough scan of all the precedents on the point, the
learned Single Judge concluded that normally the High
Court should not interfere with the investigation/criminal
proceedings involving sexual offences against women and
children, only on the ground of settlement. However,
exercise of the extraordinary powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution is not
completely foreclosed to quash such proceedings in
extraordinary circumstances, to do complete justice to the
parties. The learned Judge exhorts to take a rational view
based on pros and cons being weighted, so as to identify
fit cases for compromise.
10. In 2019, a learned Single Judge in
Crl.M.C.No.381/2018 quashed the proceedings by invoking
Crl.M.C.Nos. 6880 of 2022 and 7427 of 2024
..15.. 2025:KER:30289
the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, wherein the offences
under the POCSO Act were also involved. The learned Single
Judge found that, once the petitioner/accused and the
victim had married each other, refusal to quash the
criminal proceedings will detrimentally affect their
family life, as also, the balance and harmony achieved by
the resolution of disputes.
11. A more or less similar view is seen taken by the
Delhi High Court in Kapil Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi)
and another [2022 SCC Online SC 1030]. In Amar Kumar and
Another v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and Another
[2023 SCC Online Del 8452], the Delhi High Court quashed
all further proceedings in a case where the offences under
the POCSO Act were alleged. There was a relationship
between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent in that
case, as a consequence of which the 2 nd respondent, who
was a minor, became pregnant. In quashing the proceedings,
the Delhi High Court found that the continuance of the
Crl.M.C.Nos. 6880 of 2022 and 7427 of 2024
..16.. 2025:KER:30289
proceedings would cause extreme injustice to the parties,
besides there being remote possibility for any conviction.
12. A similar course was adopted by the Delhi High Court
in Arjun Kamti v. State of GNCT of Delhi, through SHO and
Others [2023 SCC Online Del 4735].
13. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Rajveer Singh
and Another v. State of Punjab and Another [CRM-M-
39297/2021] quashed the proceedings taking stock of the
compromise between the parties. The Court found that no
useful purpose will be served by continuing the
proceedings. The fact that the accused married the victim
and that they are happily cohabiting was taken stock of.
The denial of the prayer would be contrary to the interest
of the petitioner and the victim, was the finding of the
Punjab and Haryana High Court.
14. In Vijayalakshmi v. State represented by the
Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station (2021 SCC
Crl.M.C.Nos. 6880 of 2022 and 7427 of 2024
..17.. 2025:KER:30289
Online Mad 317), the Madras High Court quashed the
proceedings involving offences under the POCSO Act on the
strength of the settlement between the accused and the
victim, holding that, punishment of an adolescent boy for
entering into a relationship with a girl below eighteen
years of age was never the objective of the POCSO Act.
15. The Bombay High Court in Nauman Suleman Khan v.
State of Maharashtra and Another [2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 200]
quashed the crime involving the offence under the POCSO
Act, taking note of the fact that the accused had married
the victim girl, holding that the continuance of the
prosecution would hamper the peaceful life of the parties.
16. The Delhi High Court in AK v. State Govt. of NCT of
Delhi and Another [2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1077] held that the
intention of the POCSO Act was not to criminalize
consensual romantic relations.
Crl.M.C.Nos. 6880 of 2022 and 7427 of 2024
..18.. 2025:KER:30289
17. In Vijaya Kumar v. The State Government of NCT of
Delhi [Crl.M.C.No.2153/2021], the Delhi High Court quashed
the F.I.R. involving the offence under Section 6 of the
POCSO Act, holding that the 2 nd respondent therein, a
major at the time of settlement, wishes to stay with the
petitioner as his wife, along with their minor child, and
unless the F.I.R. is quashed, three lives will be ruined.
18. In Kamal v. State, Represented by the Inspector of
Police (Crl.O.P.No.3323/2024), the Madras High Court
quashed the proceedings under the POCSO Act when the
victim girl, who was present in the Court, stated that she
had married the petitioner and had a child in that
relationship.
19. The same is the course adopted by the High Court of
Himachal Pradesh in Sakshi and Another v. State of H.P.
Through Secretary (Home to the Government of Himachal
Pradesh) and Others [2021 SCC OnLine HP 7834], wherein the
Crl.M.C.Nos. 6880 of 2022 and 7427 of 2024
..19.. 2025:KER:30289
High Court gave emphasis on the aspect that, if the
settlement between the parties is to result in harmony
between them, so as to improve their future relationship,
the Court can exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
That was also a case where the marriage between the
petitioner/accused and the victim was solemnized and a
female child was born in that wedlock.
20. Relying upon the afore-referred judgments, the Orissa
High Court in Rojalin Rout and Another v. State of Odisha
and Another [2024 SCC OnLine Ori 1339], followed the same
course, after noticing the fact that the parties are
leading a happy married life. The fact that the
possibility of securing a conviction is remote and that
continuance of the proceedings may adversely affect the
mental, emotional and educational well being of the
victim, were taken stock of. The Orissa High Court held
that the offence which created impediments for the victim
and their families in the form of loss of reputation and
Crl.M.C.Nos. 6880 of 2022 and 7427 of 2024
..20.. 2025:KER:30289
dignity, have been substantially mitigated when the
accused married the victim, which also has the effect of
reforming the accused.
21. In Kajal and Another v. State of Himachal Pradesh
and Another [2018 SCC OnLine HP 2424], the High Court of
Himachal Pradesh also chose to quash the proceedings
involving the offences under the POCSO Act, as also, the
offences pertaining to rape under the Penal Code, taking
stock of the fact that the accused and the victim are
presently living happily, pursuant to their marriage,
refusal to quash will cause undue prejudice to the legally
wedded husband and wife.
22. However, this Court also notice that in Jagdish
Kumar v. State of H.P. and Others [Crl.M.M.O.No.25/2023],
a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Himachal
Pradesh refused to accept the compromise between the
petitioner and the victim. Dehors their marriage, the
Crl.M.C.Nos. 6880 of 2022 and 7427 of 2024
..21.. 2025:KER:30289
learned Single Judge chose not to quash the proceedings.
23. The same is the situation in Hiteshbhai Urfe Bholo
Gopalbhai Kadivar v. State of Gujarat and Another
(R/Crl.M.A.No.7634 of 2024). By Order dated 24.04.2024,
the High Court of Gujarat also declined the relief of
quashment based on the settlement between the parties in
respect of offences under the POCSO Act.
24. Having extensively referred to the above views of the
various High Courts, I am only inclined to follow the
views of this Court in Vishnu (supra), as also, of the
various High Courts, where the proceedings were quashed
taking stock of the settlement between the parties,
ultimately ending in the marriage between the
petitioner/accused and the defacto complainant/victim.
I am of the opinion that, merely because the offences
under the POCSO Act is alleged, there cannot be an
absolute proposition of law that the proceedings cannot be
Crl.M.C.Nos. 6880 of 2022 and 7427 of 2024
..22.. 2025:KER:30289
quashed based on settlement between the parties,
especially when the settlement is genuine and bonafide so
as to ultimately result in the marriage between the
accused and the victim. As held in many cases, each case
will have to be addressed in the peculiar facts obtaining
therein, and there cannot be an en bloc conclusion that
the quashment is wholly impermissible in cases involving
POCSO offences. There are offences which are not of a very
serious and grievous nature coming under the POCSO Act,
say, for example, an offence under Sections 11(i) or (iv)
of the Act. By saying that the said offences are less
serious, this Court is not undermining the significance
and seriousness of such offences, since it is perpetrated
against a minor. However, when the legal position, even in
respect of an offence under Section 307 of the Penal Code,
is to the effect that the same can be quashed based upon
genuine and bonafide settlement between the parties, there
is no reason as to why a less serious offence under the
POCSO Act cannot be terminated. Generally, serious
Crl.M.C.Nos. 6880 of 2022 and 7427 of 2024
..23.. 2025:KER:30289
offences having a sexual overtone, like rape under the
Penal Code, and a penetrative sexual assault etc., under
the POCSO Act cannot be terminated by quashing the same,
acting only upon the settlement between the parties. It is
indeed the offence against the society and not a private
issue between the petitioner and the defacto complainant.
However, in cases where there exist extreme mitigating
circumstances, adherence to that Rule will work out
injustice. Suffice to say that the choice in this regard
will have to be taken based on the attendant facts; and
not on the basis of the nomenclature of the statute.
25. Coming to the instant facts, in both the cases, the
petitioner/accused had married the victim. Affidavits
sworn to by the victims and their statements recorded by
the Investigating Officer would reveal that they are
living a happy married life, along with their child. The
petitioner/accused is adequately taking care of the
interest of the victim. In one case, the victim is sent
Crl.M.C.Nos. 6880 of 2022 and 7427 of 2024
..24.. 2025:KER:30289
for further studies, and the child is being taken care of
by the petitioner/accused. This Court is of the opinion
that these circumstances are extremely extenuating, so as
to bring the case outside the scope of the general
proposition that serious sexual offences cannot be
quashed, acting only upon the settlement between the
parties.
26. The following aspects assume significance in the
peculiar nature of the cases, where the offence is
followed by the marriage between the perpetrator and the
victim:
(1) Unless the criminal proceedings are
terminated by quashing the same, there will be
utter chaos, confusion and even havoc in the
life of the victim who married the accused, and
who is leading a happy life. In other words, the
life of the victim, the accused and the child,
if any, in that relationship will be ruined. Per
Crl.M.C.Nos. 6880 of 2022 and 7427 of 2024
..25.. 2025:KER:30289
contra, If the offence is quashed, it will bring
in harmony, peace and happiness, thus promoting
their family life.
(2) Unless, the Court choose to quash the
proceedings, the trauma/agony of the
child/victim continues, despite a genuine and
bonafide settlement.
(3) Despite and dehors a bonafide and genuine
settlement culminating in the marriage between
the petitioner/accused and the victim, if the
criminal proceedings are to continue - thereby
compelling the parties to face the trial - the
same verge upon abuse of process.
(4) The ends of justice is in favour of
quashment in such category of cases, since it
will be an injustice to separate a well knit
family by the continuance of the proceedings.
(5) Quashment of the proceedings will result in
rendering total and complete justice to the
Crl.M.C.Nos. 6880 of 2022 and 7427 of 2024
..26.. 2025:KER:30289
parties.
(6) When the crucial witness is the victim, who
had married the accused, there exists little
chance for her to speak against her own
husband/accused, wherefore, the chances of
conviction will be too bleak and remote. In
other words, no fruitful purpose will be served
by continuance of the proceedings.
(7) Compelling the continuance of a proceedings,
which is otherwise settled genuinely and which
answers the requirements of the interest of
justice will only add to the burden of criminal
courts in India, which is otherwise over-
burdened.
27. For the afore-referred reasons, both the Crl.M.Cs are
allowed. In the result, all further proceedings in Crime
No.466/2019 of Shanthapara Police Station, now pending as
S.C.No.213/2020 before the Fast Track Special Court,
Kattappana (Crl.M.C.No.6880/2022); and in Crime No.63/2020
Crl.M.C.Nos. 6880 of 2022 and 7427 of 2024
..27.. 2025:KER:30289
of Karikunnam Police Station, now pending as
S.C.No.212/2020 before the Special Court (POCSO), Idukki,
(Crl.M.C. No.7427/2024), will stand quashed.
This Court places on record its sincere appreciation to
the commendable service rendered by Smt.A.Parvathi Menon,
the learned Amicus Curiae.
Sd/-
C. JAYACHANDRAN
JUDGE
TR
Crl.M.C.Nos. 6880 of 2022 and 7427 of 2024
..28.. 2025:KER:30289
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIS AND FIR
IN CRIME NO.63/2020 DATED 11.02.2020
OF KARIMKUNNAM POLICE STATION
Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
S.C.212/2020 OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT (SPECIAL
COURT POCSO ACT) THODUPUZHA
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF
MARRIAGE BEARING NO.400575/CRCM02/
GENERAL/2020/243 DATED 27/03/2023
ISSUED FROM THE PURAPUZHA GRAMA
PANCHAYAT.
Annexure A4 THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF THE CHILD
BEARING NO.B00601902003097
Annexure A5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED
14.07.2024 ISSUED FROM SREE CHAITHANYA
COLLEGE OF NURSING, TIRUPATHI BY THE
PRINCIPAL OF THE COLLEGE IN FAVOUR OF
THE SECOND RESPONDENT
Annexure A6 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE SECOND
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC
DATED 20.07.2024
Crl.M.C.Nos. 6880 of 2022 and 7427 of 2024
..29.. 2025:KER:30289
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure I COPY OF THE FIR & FIS IN CRIME
NO.466/2019 OF SANTHANPARA POLICE
STATION
Annexure II CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
Annexure III A COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF THE
DEFACTO COMPLAINANT
Annexure IV A COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CUM
RECEIPT FOR SPECIAL MARRIAGE AND
NOTICE OF INTENDED MARRIAGE DATED
DATED 15.09.2020
Annexure V THE NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT
