Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 13593
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.PRATHEEP KUMAR, J
SREEJITH VIJAYAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 5330 OF 2021
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings
Act Referred
Headnote
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.T.K.ANANDA KRISHNAN
For the Respondents: SRI.BREEZ M. S.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accused's petition for quashing proceedings due to settled dispute. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. affidavit from complainant indicating resolution. (Para 3) |
| 3. opposition by the public prosecutor to settlement. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 4. relationship characterized as consensual. (Para 7) |
| 5. court grants relief based on settled matters. (Para 8) |
ORDER
Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2026 The sole accused in S.C. No. 758 of 2020 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, arising out of Crime No. 612 of 2019 of Mannanthala police station, filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., praying for quashing all further proceedings against him. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 376 of the IPC and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act .
2. The prosecution case is that the accused, who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, after promising to marry the defacto complainant, who is a member of the Scheduled Caste community, sexually abused her and thereafter refused to marry her.
3. The learned counsel for the petitoner submitted that now the entire dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant has been settled, therefore he prayed for quashing all further proceedings against the petitioner.
4. The petition was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. Though notice was served on the 2nd respondent/
defacto complainant, she did not turn up. However, she had filed an affidavit stating that the entire dispute between herself and the petitioner has been settled and also that she does not want to proceed with the case.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the defacto complainant had already given a signed statement to the SHO in tune of the averments in the affidavit filed before this Court.
7. On a perusal of the FI statement, it can be seen that the petitioner and the defacto complainant were in a romantic relationship. On one day, when they were traveling in a train, the petitioner allegedly kissed and hugged her in the toilet. Thereafter, on one day, as requested by the petitioner she accompanied him to a hotel room and the alleged incident occurred in the said hotel room. Therefore, prima facie it can be seen that the relationship between the petitioner and the defacto complainant was a consensual one.
8. Moreover, now the entire dispute between them has been settled and the defacto complainant filed an affidavit stating that she does not want to proceed with the case. In the above circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in continuing proceedings against the petitioner as the same will be an abuse of the process of the court.
Therefore, this Crl.M.C. is liable to be allowed.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner in S.C. No. 758 of 2020 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, arising out of Crime No. 612 of 2019 of Mannanthala police station, is quashed.
Sd/-
