.... – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor – Respondent
ORDER :
A. Badharudeen, J.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed by the petitioner, who is the sole accused in Crime No.714/2020 of Kaduthuruthy Police Station, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking the following prayers:
ii. Grant such other relief that may be proper and necessary in the interest of justice.”
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records, placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, form part of the prosecution and other documents.
3. Here, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 354D, 450 and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as Section 6 r/w 5(l) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PoCSO Act’). The allegation is that the defacto complainant and the accused, who legally effected marriage as on 19.06.2017, maintained love relationship since 201
Allegations of sexual offences raised after significant delay post-marriage were found unsustainable, indicating potential misuse of the PoCSO Act.
The court established that a promise of marriage coupled with sexual intercourse can constitute grounds for prosecution under sexual offence laws, necessitating a trial.
Serious offences under the POCSO Act cannot be quashed based on compromise or victim's affidavit, reaffirming the need for societal protection.
Consent in sexual offences cannot be deemed obtained by misconception if the complainant is already married, nullifying the validity of the promise of marriage.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to examine if a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and instituted maliciously with ulterior motives, and the circu....
The court ruled that the allegations did not constitute sexual assault as defined under the PoCSO Act, emphasizing the lack of sexual intent in the accused's actions.
Serious offences under the POCSO Act cannot be settled; quashment based on settlement is impermissible due to public interest considerations.
In matrimonial disputes, criminal proceedings may be quashed if the parties amicably resolve their issues, particularly when the allegations lack sufficient evidence of wrongdoing.
Consent obtained under a misconception of fact, such as a promise of marriage, is not valid consent; this necessitates a trial to determine the nature of the consent.
The court can quash an FIR under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) based on the settlement of dispute between the....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.