Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 34560
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
...... – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 4857/2022
SANTHARAM.P, REKHA ARAVIND, P.G.GOKULNATH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI M.P.PRASANTH, V.BINOY RAM, S.SIDHARDHAN(K/150/1992)
Serious allegations of sexual offences require thorough investigation, and quashing an FIR at the initial stage is not warranted.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Quashing of FIR – The accused sought to quash an FIR alleging serious offences under IPC Sections 376(2)(n), 406, and 506 – The court found that the allegations required investigation and did not warrant quashing at this stage. (Paras 1, 5, 7)
(B) Criminal Law – Sexual Offences – The court emphasized that allegations of forceful sexual intercourse and threats necessitate thorough investigation before any quashing of proceedings can be considered. (Paras 3, 7)
Facts of the case: The accused was alleged to have committed sexual offences against the defacto complainant, including forceful sexual intercourse and threats regarding photographs taken during the assaults, alongside financial exploitation. (Paras 3, 4)
Findings of Court: The court determined that the allegations were serious and required investigation, thus dismissing the petition to quash the FIR. (Paras 7)
Issues: The main issue was whether the FIR should be quashed at the initial stage despite serious allegations. (Paras 5, 7)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that serious allegations of sexual offences necessitate an investigation, and quashing the FIR at this stage would be premature. (Paras 7)
Result: Petition dismissed.
O R D E R
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C' for short) by the sole accused seeking to quash Annexure 1 FIR in Crime No.333/2022 of Balussery Police, Kozhikode.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail.
3. Here the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 376 (2)(n) , 406 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (` IPC ' for short) by the accused. The prosecution case as could be read out from the prosecution records is that the accused herein, who intervened in the matrimonial discord between the defacto complainant and her husband after their marriage on 05.12.2010, during the month of December, 2017 invited her to his residence to deal with case relating to the marital dispute. Accordingly, the defacto complainant arrived at his house and while discussing the case, the accused brought the defacto complainant to his bed room forcefully, removed her dress and subjected to sexual intercourse forcefully against her will. That apart the accused taken photographs of the sexual assault and threatened her that in the event of disclosure of the same, those photographs would be forwarded to her husband. Again the accused invited her to reach the house of one Ravi, a friend of the accused, to discuss about the case between her and the former husband, and she was subjected to sexual intercourse forcefully, by threat. Further case is that during October, 2018 the accused promised to marry the defacto complainant and on the said promise, at the house of Nazeer, a friend of the accused, also the accused repeated the sexual intercourse. The further allegation is that he also obtained Rs.3,54,000/- and gold ornaments weighing 2.5 sovereigns from the defacto complainant and failed to return the same.
4. While seeking quashment of the proceedings, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present crime was registered as an attempt to settle the discord between the accused and the defacto complainant. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner as well as the informant were in extra marital relationship and subsequently the defacto complainant made certain face book posts with fake I.D using the photograph of the petitioner, against the petitioner and his family, which made an impression that the petitioner conveyed certain matters, which made himself guilty. Subsequently the petitioner filed a police complaint and forwarded the same to cyber cell for enquiry as per Annexure 2 complaint dated 01.05.2022 and the present crime was registered on 24.05.2022 after Annexure 1 complaint. It is argued further that as per Annexure 3, anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was disposed of by this Court.
5. Whereas the learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed quashment of this crime at the initial stage without allowing the prosecution to investigate the matter, where the allegations are serious.
6. On perusal of Annexure 1 complaint alleged to be lodged by the petitioner herein, the allegation is that somebody was attempting to defame the petitioner through social media by creating fake I.D in facebook by using his photograph. In Annexure 1 nothing stated to the effect that the said overt act is at the instance of the defacto complainant herein and much reliance has been given to Annexure 3 order, as per which this Court dismissed the application for anticipatory bail.
7. In this matter even though promise of marriage is alleged at a subsequent stage, forceful sexual intercourse at the instance of the petitioner is the allegation where the petitioner would contend that the same is an extra marital relationship. In fact, these matters would require investigation by the Investigating Officer and, therefore, interference in the FIR could not be considered and hence this petition necessarily would fail.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
8. Interim order granted shall
