High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2017-02-08FIR and proceedings quashed.

Ajith Anand, Dayananda Pillai and Sathi v. State of Kerala and Sandhya Mol

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No.8721 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date: 2017-02-08
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is allowed; Annexure A1 FIR in Crime No. 362 of 2015 and all proceedings thereto against the petitioners are quashed.
Final Disposition: FIR and proceedings quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Ajith Anand
Dayananda Pillai
Sathi

Respondents

State of Kerala
Sandhya Mol

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. SMT. G. Vidya

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor Sri. E.C. Bineesh
• Adv. Sri. Jeswin P. Varghese

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal miscellaneous case under Section 482 CrPC, filed by the accused petitioners seeking to invoke the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to quash Crime No. 362/2015 registered at Anchalumoodu Police Station, Kollam, for offences including Section 376 IPC read with Section 34, Section 506(ii) IPC read with Section 34, and Section 3 of the SC/ST (POA) Act. The FIR is based on the de facto complainant’s allegations that the 1st petitioner induced her to have sexual intercourse by promising marriage. The facts reveal that the parties were in love, the 1st petitioner later married the 2nd respondent, and a child was born, as evidenced by Annexure A2 (marriage certificate) and Annexure A3 (affidavit). The petition contends that after registration, the parties married and are living together; continuation of the criminal proceedings would cause grave hardship and is not in the interest of justice. The learned counsel for the petitioners emphasizes that the law permits quashing in appropriate circumstances under S.482 CrPC, while acknowledging that rape is non-compoundable. The court cites Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab as guiding authorities. It distinguishes this case as not falling into the category of grievous offences, noting the complainant’s lack of grievance and the couple’s marital status. Consequently, the High Court exercises its extraordinary power to quash the proceedings, ordering that the FIR and all related proceedings be quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 CrPCSections 376, 506(ii) IPC read with Section 34Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989Section 320 CrPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC are distinct from the power to compound under Section 320 CrPC.
Rape is a non-compoundable offence and cannot be settled by compromise.
Guiding authorities for quashing include Gian Singh v. State of Punjab; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab; State of MP v. Madan Lal; Shimbhu and Another v. State of Haryana.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that after the registration of Crime No. 362/2015 on 07.03.2015, the 1st petitioner married the 2nd respondent (as evidenced by Annexure A2) and they are living together in a marital relation. A child has been born, and Annexure A3 supports the factual backdrop. They argue that continuing prosecution would cause grave hardship and would not be in the interest of justice, particularly since the complainant no longer seeks to press the matter. While rape is non-compoundable, the unique facts — marriage, cohabitation, and the victim’s lack of ongoing grievance — render this a suitable case for quashing under the High Court’s inherent powers, consistent with Gian Singh and Narinder Singh as guiding principles. The court should balance the nature of the offence with the overall circumstances, including public interest and the potential impact on family life.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents highlight that the allegations involved serious offences, including rape and offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act, and that a non-compoundable crime cannot automatically be nullified based on private settlement. The de facto complainant’s statement has been recorded, and the state emphasizes the gravity and impact of the crime on society. While Annexure A2 shows a marriage, the Court must consider whether this evidence negates the statutory offense or the victim’s dignity, especially given that rape cannot be compromised, per the jurisprudence in Shimbhu and Madan Lal. The learned Public Prosecutor also notes that the continuance of the prosecution serves the principles of justice and public interest, and urges caution in quashing, even where the couple has since married.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (10) SCC 303	Positive	Cited as guiding principle for using inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings in appropriate circumstances.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	2014 (6) SCC 466	Positive	Cited as guiding authority for the admissibility of settlement and quashing in suitable cases.
State of MP v. Madan Lal	2015 (7) SCC 681	Positive	Used to emphasize that rape is non-compoundable and cannot be settled by compromise.
Shimbhu and Another v. State of Haryana	2014 (13) SCC 318	Positive	Cited for the principle that rape, as an offence against society, cannot be compromised.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Ajith Anand, Dayananda Pillai and Sathi v. State of Kerala and Sandhya Mol and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/19TH MAGHA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 8721 of 2016 () ---------------------------** **CRIME NO. 362/2015 OF ANCHALUMMOODU POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT** **-------** **PETITIONER(S)/1-3 ACCUSED:** **-------------------------** ## **1. AJITH ANAND** **AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. DAYANANDA PILLAI, DASARA (H), CHEMMAKKAD CHERRY, PERINAD, KOLLAM DISTRICT** ## **2. DAYANANDA PILLAI, AGED 62 YEARS,** - **DASARA (H) CHEMMAKKAD CHERRY, PERINAD, KOLLAM DISTRICT** ## **3. SATHI** **AGED 51 YEARS, W/O. DAYANANDA PILLAI, DASARA (H) CHEMMAKKAD CHERRY, PERINAD, KOLLAM DISTRICT** **BY ADV. SMT.G.VIDYA** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:** ## **--------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA** - **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM** ## **2. SANDHYA MOL** - **AGED 30 YEARS, W/O. AJITH ANAND, DASARA (H), CHEMMAKKAD CHERRY, PERINAD, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN 691601** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.E.C. BINEESH R2 BY ADV. SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **bp** **Crl.MC.No. 8721 of 2016 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------ANNEXURE A1: THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 362/2015 OF ANCHALUMOODU POLICE STATION IN KOLLAM DISTRICT, DATED 07.03.2015 ANNEXURE A2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE DATED 13.05.2015 ANNEXURE A3: THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 31.08.2016 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE** ## **bp** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.8721 OF 2016 ----------------------------------------Dated this the 8[th ] day of February, 2017** ## **O R D E R ~~~~~~~** - 1.This petition is filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' ) with a prayer to invoke the extraordinary inherent powers and to quash the pending criminal proceedings. - 2.On the basis of Annexure-A1 FIR lodged by the 2[nd] respondent, Crime No.362 of 2015 was registered for offence under Sections 376, 506(ii) read with Section 34 of the IPC and under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, against the petitioners herein. - 3.The facts would reveal that the 1[st] petitioner and the 2[nd] respondent were in love with each other. The 1[st] petitioner had assured her during the courting period that he would marry her. By giving such promise, the 1[st] Crl.M.C. No. 8721 of 2016 **-2-** petitioner induced the 2[nd] respondent to have sexual intercourse with him. On various occasion, the 2[nd] respondent yielded to the carnal desires of the 1[st] petitioner. In course of time, the affection of the 1[st] petitioner towards the 2[nd] respondent faded. When the 1[st] petitioner started avoiding the 2[nd] respondent, she approached the learned Magistrate and filed a complaint based on which the aforesaid Crime was registered. - 4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that after the registration of the Crime on 7.3.2015, the 1[st] petitioner married the 2[nd] respondent and they are living together in perfect martial bliss. Reliance is placed on Annexure-A2, the Certificate of marriage to bring home his point. - 5.The counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent referring to Annexure-A3 submits that she has no further grievance. Crl.M.C. No. 8721 of 2016 **-3-** According to the learned counsel, a child has been born in the wedlock and the pendency of the criminal proceedings are not in the best interest of the family. - 6.Learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submits that the statement of the de facto complainant has been recorded. It is submitted that the inquiry revealed that the - 1[st] petitioner had married the 2[nd] respondent and a child has been born in the wedlock. - 7.I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the materials on record. - 8.The legal position with regard to quashing of proceedings on the basis of compromise between the parties is by now well settled. It has been held that the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal Court for Crl.M.C. No. 8721 of 2016 **-4-** compounding the offences under S.320 of the Code. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the Court will have to give due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. It is also settled that heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., cannot quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offenses are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. The directions of the Apex Court in **Gian singh v. State of Punjab** [(2012) 10 SCC 303] and in **Narinder singh v. State of Punjab** [(2014) 6 SCC 466 ] serve as guiding lights. 9.In so far as the offence of rape is concerned, there cannot Crl.M.C. No. 8721 of 2016 **-5-** be any doubt that the same cannot be settled on the strength of a compromise arrived at between the victim and the accused. The Apex Court in **State of M.P. V Madan Lal** (2015 (7) SCC 681), relying on the decision in **Shimbhu and Another v. State of Haryana** (2014 (13) SCC 318) has clearly reminded the Courts that rape is a non-compoundable offence and it is an offence against the society and is not a matter to be left for the parties to compromise and settle. This was because of the fact that the Court cannot always be assured that the consent given by the victim in compromising the case is a genuine consent. There is every chance that the victim might have been pressurised by the convicts or the trauma undergone by her all the years might have compelled her to opt for a compromise. In such cases the accused may use all his influence to pressurise the victim for a compromise. It was taking note of this aspect that it was Crl.M.C. No. 8721 of 2016 **-6-** held that it would not be safe in considering the compromise arrived at between the parties in rape cases. In **Madan Lal** (supra) the Apex Court was hearing an appeal filed by the State against the Judgement of the High Court by which the conviction arrived at by the Trial Court was set aside on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the victim and the accused. 10.However, the facts of the instant case are entirely different. Annexure-A2 produced by the petitioner would unequivocally show that the parties have married and are living together. It appears that the Crime was registered when the 2[nd] respondent entertained an apprehension that the 1[st] petitioner would withdraw from his promise to marry her. There is no case for anyone that the dignity of the 2[nd] respondent was violated by a wanton act of the 1[st] petitioner. This is not one of those cases wherein the allegations reek of extreme depravity, perversity or Crl.M.C. No. 8721 of 2016 **-7-** 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 2[nd] respondent if the prosecution is permitted to continue. When the respondent No. 2 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 2[nd] respondent 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 ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. Crl.M.C. No. 8721 of 2016 **-8-** In the result this petition will stand allowed. AnnexureA1 FIR in Crime No.362 of 2015 of Anchalumoodu Police Station and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are quashed. **sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** PS/9/2/17