Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
M.R.ANITHA, J
A A – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC/5816/2020
Quash - Criminal Proceedings - IPC Section 376(2), PoCSO Act Sections 5j(II), 6 - The court quashed the criminal proceedings under IPC Section 376(2) and PoCSO Act based on the victim's attained majority and subsequent marriage, citing prior judgments allowing quash due to settlement.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner is accused of sexually assaulting a minor, which led to a police case. Post attaining majority, the victim married the petitioner. She and her mother provided affidavits indicating no grievances against him, prompting the petition to quash the ongoing case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that since the victim married the petitioner after reaching the age of majority and expressed no intent to prosecute, quashing the criminal case was warranted for substantial justice.
Issues: Whether ongoing criminal proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed following the victim's marriage, reaching majority, and expressed lack of grievances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on precedents where marriages and settlements between victim and accused resulted in quashing similar proceedings, emphasizing that resolving matters amicably serves substantial justice.
Final Decision: The petition to quash the criminal proceedings is allowed.
ORDER
Petitioner is the sole accused in crime No.731/2020 of Koratty police station. This Crl.M.C. has been filed seeking to quash all further proceedings in the above crime which is registered for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) of IPC and Section 5j (II)
and 6 of PoCSO Act, 2012.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner with the intention and preparation to subject the victim-minor girl to sexual intercourse, promised to marry her and took her to his house at Koratti on 06.12.2019 and thereafter impregnated her and thereby committed the offence as alleged.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, after the defacto complainant attained majority, the petitioner married the defacto complainant and now they are living together as husband and wife. A child is also born out of their wedlock. The petitioner produced Annexure A-3, the copy of the birth certificate of the victim girl, which would show that her date of birth is 23.10.2002. Annexure A-4 is the copy of the FIR. Annexure A-5 is the marriage certificate, which would show that the petitioner married the defacto complainant on 26.10.2020.
4. Adv.Jijo Jose appear on behalf of the defacto complainant. He would submit that the defacto complainant is present today. The learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the defacto complainant was present before the Court.
5. The Notary attested afÏdavit sworn in by the mother of the victim is produced as Annexure A-1, in which she has specifically stated that the victim is her daughter and now she is 18 years old and has been married to the petitioner. It is also stated that the entire issues between the petitioner and the defacto complainant has been settled and presently she has no grievance against the petitioner. Annexure A-2 is the afÏdavit sworn in by the victim in which she also has categorically stated that the petitioner married her and she has no grievance against the petitioner at present and she is not intending to prosecute the case. The birth certificate of the victim would prove that he has attained majority and marriage with the petitioner has also been conducted.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor produced copy of the marriage certificate of the petitioner and the victim, after attaining majority, which would prove that the marriage was solemnized at Kavalamkodam Saktheeswaram Temple on 26.10.2020. Copy of the marriage certificate issued from the Panchayath also has been produced. The statement of the victim recorded by the CPO also has been produced, in which also, she has categorically stated that she has no complaint against the petitioner for the time being. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my attention the decision of this Court inAshiq v. State of Kerala [ 2019(2) KLT 1130 ], wherein this Court had an occasion to consider an identical situation and held that when parties have amicably settled the matter and the petitioner married the victim girl, for the ends of substantial justice, it will be necessary to quash the proceedings.
8. It is also relevant in this context to quote judgment in Crl.A.No.1740/2019 [ Saju P.R. v. State of Kerala ] wherein the Apex Court while considering an identical situation of a case involving Section 376 of IPC has held that on the basis of afÏdavit filed by the complainant and other materials on record, it would be proper to quash the criminal proceedings pending against the accused for doing complete justice to the parties concerned and accordingly, a Crl.M.C. which was dismissed by this Court on the ground that offence involved is one under of was ultimately allowed by the Apex Court.
9. A learned Single Judge of this Court inDenu P. Thampi v. Ms.X and Another [ 2019 (3) KHC 199 ] also had occasion to consider in a situation, where a case involving 376 of IPC , has been quashed in view of the subsequent settlement and marriage between the victim and the accused.
10. In the above backdrop, since the petitioner and the victim already marr
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
