Chacko Antony v. State of Kerala and Abdul Riyas

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2019 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1941** **Crl.MC.No. 3290 of 2019** **CRIME NO. 828/2019 OF Chingavanam Police Station , Kottayam** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **CHACKO ANTONY AGED 53 YEARS** **S/O. LATE M. ANTONY, MUKKATTU HOUSE, KOTTAMURI P.O, THRICKODITHANAM, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686105.** **BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE AND VICTIM'S FATHER** **:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031.** - **2 ABDUL RIYAS** - **S/O. ABDUL KAZEEM, AGED 43 YEARS, EETTYMOOTTIL BISMI MANZIL, KUMMANNOOR KARA, AIRAVAN VILLAGE, KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689691.** **BY ADV. SRI.NAVEEN RADHAKRISHNAN** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.05.2019, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..3001/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.M.C.No.3290/2018 & Con.case 2 **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2019 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1941** **Bail Appl..No. 3001 of 2019** **CRIME NO.828/2019 OF CHINGAVANAM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM** **PETITIONER/S:** **CHACKO ANTONY AGED 53 YEARS S/O. LATE M ANTONY, MUKKATTU HOUSE, KOTTAMURI P.O, THRICKODITHANAM, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT PIN 686 105** **BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY** **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN 682 031** **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ,** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.05.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.3290/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.M.C.No.3290/2018 & Con.case 3 ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.** ------------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.3290/2019 & Bail Appl. No.3001/2019 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 24[th] day of May, 2019 ## **ORDER** The prayer in Crl.M.C. is for quashment of the impugned trial and the prayer in the Bail Application is in the matter of grant of anticipatory bail in respect of the same crime. Both the petitions have been filed by the accused persons concerned. Since the matters are interrelated, these applications are disposed of on the basis of this common order. Crl.M.C.No.3290/2019 Heard Sri. M.P.Madhavankutty, the learned counsel appearing for the the petitioner/Accused, Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and Sri. Naveen Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent, who is the guardian of the minor victim. 2. The petitioner is the sole accused in Annexure-1 FIR in Crime No.828/2019 of Chingavanam Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Section 354 of IPC r/w. Section 10 and 9(p) of Protections of Crl.M.C.No.3290/2018 & Con.case 4 Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 3. The allegation of the prosecution in short is that the petitioner/accused is the Camp Officer of National Cadet Corps (NCC) and that he had sexually assaulted the minor victim girl, aged 12 years at the time of the alleged incident, which had taken place in the year 2015. The offence was registered on the basis of First Information Statement given as late as on 13.4.2019. According to the petitioner, the allegations are far away from truth and that the truth of the matter is that the petitioner as the Camp Officer of NCC had scolded and tried to correct certain errors, which was committed by the minor victim girl, while she was asked to write certificates, which are to be given to the Cadres and a complaint was prepared by the senior girls of the NCC alleging sexual assault on the said minor victim girl, then only 12 years and that without understanding the consequences, she has signed on the same as the senior girls also have certain grudge against the petitioner. That on the basis of the said complaint that the departmental proceedings of the NCC department were initiated against the petitioner. That the person, who is logger head of the petitioner's office had obtained certain Crl.M.C.No.3290/2018 & Con.case 5 documents under the Right to Information Act in relation to the above said aspects and then on the basis of the said documents, he had lodged a complaint before the Child line, Kottayam with regard to the alleged incident and on that basis, the police authorities of Chingavanam Police Station had taken the statement of the minor victim girl. That initially she had given statement in tune with what has actually transpired. But, later, due to compulsion, she had given a statement, which is not in tune with her earlier version and which is the subject matter of the present allegation. That there are no grave allegations of sexual assault except that the accused had touched the chest of the girl etc. The matter was discussed with the parents of the victim girl, who also realised the truth of the matter, after discussing with the girl and now the minor victim girl as well as the parents have fully settled the matter with the petitioner. The 2[nd] respondent, who is the father and guardian of the minor victim girl, has given Annexures-II and III notarized affidavits stating about the settlement of the matter and that they are no longer interested to continue the impugned prosecution in respect of the impugned criminal proceedings etc., and that the matter has happened only on Crl.M.C.No.3290/2018 & Con.case 6 ## account of misunderstandings etc. 4. In a catena of decisions, the Apex Court has held that, in appropriate cases involving even non-compoundable offences, the High Court can quash prosecution by exercise of the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C., if the parties have really settled the whole dispute or if the continuance of the prosecution will not serve any purpose. Here, this Court finds a real case of settlement between the parties and it is also found that continuance of the prosecution in such a situation will not serve any purpose other than wasting the precious time of the court, when the case ultimately comes before the court. On a perusal of the petition and on a close scrutiny of the investigation materials on record and the affidavits of settlement and taking into account the attendant facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court in the cases as in _**Gian Singh** v._ _**State of Punjab**_ reported in 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160 = (2012) 10 SCC 303 and _**Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr**_ . reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, more particularly paragraph 29 thereof, could be applied in this case to consider the prayer for quashment. Crl.M.C.No.3290/2018 & Con.case 7 5. After hearing both sides, it is seen that there are no grave allegations of sexual assault except the aspects mentioned herein above. It is also stated by learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent that the parents as well as the girl have realised that it is also more better in the interest and welfare of the minor victim girl that the impugned criminal proceedings are terminated as otherwise she also will have to undergo the trauma of prolonged impugned criminal proceedings and that this Court may quash the impugned criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement. 6. After hearing all the parties concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the discretionary inherent powers conferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C could be invoked in this case and in that view of the matter, it is ordered that the impugned Annexure-I FIR in Crime No.828/2019 of Chingavanam Police Station and all further proceedings taken in pursuance thereof as against the petitioner/accused will stand quashed. The petitioner and the office of the Advocate General will produce certified copy of this order before the Investigating Officer concerned and before the competent court below concerned, viz., Additional Crl.M.C.No.3290/2018 & Con.case 8 Sessions Court (dealing with POCSO cases), Kottayam for necessary information. With these observations and directions, the above Criminal Miscellaneous Case will stand finally disposed of. B.A.No.3001/2019 Sri. M.P. Madhavankutty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit on the basis of instruction that in view of the above said order rendered today (24.5.2019) by this court in the above Crl.M.C.3290/2019 quashing the impugned criminal proceedings in Crime No.828/2019 of Chingavanam Police Station, nothing survives in the present application for grant of anticipatory bail and that the petition may be closed accordingly. Recording the above said submission of the petitioner, the above bail application will stand disposed of. ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.** acd Crl.M.C.No.3290/2018 & Con.case 9 ## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 3290/2019** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO.828/2019 SUBMITTED BY THE CHINGAVANAM POLICE BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, POCSO, KOTTAYAM.** **ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE ALLEGED VICTIM. ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT OF THE FATHER OF THE ALLEGED VICTIM.** TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE.