Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 31203
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
M.R.ANITHA, J
YYYY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA, – Respondent
Crl.MC/3769/2021
RAAJESH S.SUBRAHMANIAN, V.R.RAJESH, C.S.SUMESH
The marriage between the accused and victim, coupled with the victim’s lack of grievance, justified quashing the criminal proceedings.
Headnote:
Criminal Law - Rape - IPC Sections 376, 450; POCSO Act Sections 3, 4, 6; SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Section 3(2)(v) - The court quashed proceedings based on marriage between the victim and the accused, citing lack of grievance and potential hardship.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was charged with serious sexual offenses against a minor, who later became his wife. The defacto complainant expressed no grievance against the petitioner post-marriage.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the parties are married with a child and continuing prosecution would cause hardship, thus quashing the proceedings.
Issues: Whether criminal proceedings should continue when the victim has married the accused and expresses no desire for prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in light of the victim's change in circumstances and lack of grievance.
Final Decision: Proceedings quashed in Crl.M.C. S.C.No.94/2020.
O R D E R
Petitioner is the sole accused in S.C.No.94/2020 on the file of Additional District & Sessions Court-I, Pathanamthitta, which arose out of Crime No.871/2019 of Keezhvaipur police station, charged under Sections 450 , 376 (2)(n) of IPC , Section 6 r/w.5(j) (ii)(l), 4 r/w.3(a)(iii) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act , 2012 and Section 3 (2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989. This Crl.M.C has been filed seeking to quash further proceedings in the above said case.
2. Prosecution case is that petitioner/accused during the period from 11.12.2018 to 16.04.2019 visited the 2nd respondent- defacto complainant's house and had sexual relationship with her, out of which, she became pregnant, when she was a minor aged only 17 years, thereby accused committed the offences aforementioned.
3. Adv. Sri.C.S.Sumesh appeared on behalf of the 2nd respondent - defacto complainant and reported that the petitioner married the defacto complainant and now they are living together as husband and wife with a girl child born out of their wedlock. Hence she has no further grievance against the petitioner.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor filed report of the Inspector of Police, Keezhvaipur Police Station along with signed statement of the defacto complainant.
5. It has come out from Annexure A2 - copy of certificate of marriage of the petitioner and the defacto complainant - 2nd respondent that the petitioner married the defacto complainant on 04.08.2020. Annexure A3 is the affidavit sworn in by the defacto complainant. It has also come out from the affidavit as well as the copy of the signed statement of the defacto complainant that the petitioner and the defacto complainant are presently living together as husband and wife and she has no further grievance against the petitioner. A child also born out of their wedlock.
6. It is relevant in this context to quote Freddy @
Antony Francis and Another v. State of Kerala and Another (2017 KHC 344 = 2018 (1) KLD 558), Mohammed Rasal v. State of Kerala and Another (2019 (5) KHC 904 = 2020 (1)
KLT 126) and Unni.A. v. State of Kerala and Another (Crl.M.C.2459/2018 dated 8.9.2020).
7.Freddy, referred above, was a case registered against the accused under Section 376 IPC and Section 3 (1)(XII) of SC/ST Act and during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, accused married the victim and they filed a joint petition to quash the proceedings. So this Court considered the question whether power under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be exercised or not.
Paragraph 9 of the said judgment is relevant which reads thus :
“It is borne out from the statement recorded by the Sub Inspector of Police of the 2nd petitioner that the parties were in love and the Crime was registered when the 2nd petitioner was under the impression that the 1st petitioner would resile from his earlier promise. However, in view of the subsequent turn of events, she has realized that her apprehension was baseless. The parties are living together as husband and wife. There is no case for anyone that the dignity of the 2nd petitioner was violated by a wanton act of the 1st petitioner. This is not one of those cases wherein the allegations reek of extreme deparavity, perversity or cruelty. It cannot be said that the offence in the instant case would fall in the category of offences that have a serious impact on society. In the peculiar facts of the instant case, grave hardship and inconvenience will be caused to the 2nd petitioner, if the prosecution is permitted to continue. When the 2nd petitioner has asserted that she is not desirous of prosecuting her husband any further, the prospects of an ultimate conviction is remote and bleak. Further more, the 2nd petitioner can continue with her life with dignity and respect. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this is a fit case in which this Court will be well justified in invoking its extra ordina
