[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Xxxxx vs State Of Kerala on 25 March, 2026
Crl.MC.No. 7736 of 2022
2026:KER:26437
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1948
CRL.MC NO. 7736 OF 2022
CRIME NO.375/2019 OF Mananthavady Police Station, Wayanad
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN Crl.M.Appl /2022
IN SC NO.300 OF 2019 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT &
SESSIONS COURT - I & RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
KALPETTA
PETITIONERS:
1 XXXXX
AGED 22 YEARS
XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX, PIN - 670645
2 XXXXX
AGED 20 YEARS
XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX, PIN - 67045
BY ADVS.
SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR
SMT.LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL
SHRI.ARUN POOMULLI
SMT.PREETHA S CHANDRAN
SHRI.ABHIJITH SREEKUMAR
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Crl.MC.No. 7736 of 2022
2026:KER:26437
2
SR. PP. SMT. BINDU.O.V
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HERAD
ON 25.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 7736 of 2022
2026:KER:26437
3
ORDER
(Dated this the 25th day of March, 2026
The defcto complainant and the accused in SC No. 300
of 2019 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Court-I, Kalpetta
arising out of Crime No. 375 of 2019 of Mananthavady Police
Station filed this Crl.MC under Section 482 Cr.PC praying for
quashing all further proceedings against the 1 st petitioner.
The offences alleged against the 1st petitioner are under
Sections 450, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Sections 6, 5j(ii) of the
POCSO Act.
2. The prosecution case is that, the accused after
making friendship with the defacto complainant, who was a
minor, committed penetrative sexual assault upon her and
impregnated her.
3. According to the learned Counsel for the
petitioners, now the entire dispute between the parties has
been settled and that the 1 st petitioner married the 2nd
petitioner. Now they are living together as husband and wife
happily along with their two children. Therefore, they prayed
for quashing all further proceedings against the 1 st petitioner.
4. The petition was opposed by the learned Public
Prosecutor. However, the learned Public Prosecutor, upon
2026:KER:26437
instructions further submitted that the 2 nd petitioner had given
signed statement to the SHO, in tune with the averments in
the affidavit filed by her before this Court.
5. The question whether a crime of aggravated
penetrative sexual assault registered under the provisions of
the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act could be
quashed taking note of the fact that the victim was married by
the accused was considered by this Court in the decision in
xxxx v. State of Kerala, 2025 (4) KHC 471. After relying
upon various precedents, in paragraph 26 this court held that:
(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
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 de-hors a bonafide and genuine
2026:KER:26437
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 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 :
2025:KER:52904 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.
2026:KER:26437
6. In the decision in Mahesh Mukund Patel v.
State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 614, the accused married
the victim and they were leading a happy married life. In that
case also, the fact that the person who was once an assailant,
now turned out to be the protector and saviour of the victim
was considered as a relevant circumstances to quash the
proceeding pending against him.
7. In this case also, 1st the petitioner has already
married the victim and now they are leading a happy married
life. To prove the same, the 1st petitioner has produced a
certificate of marriage issued by Marriage Officer,
Mananthavady stating that the 1 st petitioner married the 2nd
petitioner on 29.10.2021. In the affidavit filed by the 2nd
petitioner she expressed her desire to terminate the
prosecution proceedings against the 1st petitioner and also
that for preserving the peaceful and happy family life,
termination of the proceedings is highly necessary.
8. Therefore, termination of the proceedings against
the 1st petitioner in such an exceptional circumstance is highly
necessary to maintain the harmonious and peaceful life of the
victim who now remains under the care and protection of the
1st petitioner. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the
2026:KER:26437
proceedings against the 1st petitioner deserves favourable
consideration.
9. In the result, this petition is allowed. The
proceedings against the 1st petitioner in SC No. 300 of 2019
on the file of the Addl. Sessions Court-I, Kalpetta arising out of
Crime No. 375 of 2019 of Mananthavady Police Station, is
quashed.
Sd/-
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR
JUDGE
AKH
