Christo Joseph v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: M.R. Anitha
Judgment Date: 2021-11-01
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is allowed; the further proceedings in Crime No. 331/2019, now pending as S.C. No. 300/2019 before the Additional Sessions Court-I (Fast Track I, Special Court (POCSO)), Kottayam, are quashed.
Final Disposition: Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Christo Joseph

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
CW1 (defacto complainant and victim)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• C.R. Biju Kumar
• Shema Elizabeth Scaria

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Renjit George, Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case (CRL.M.C. No. 4836 of 2021) heard by a single judge, Justice M.R. Anitha, challenging the final report and ongoing proceedings in Crime No. 331/2019 of Kidangoor Police Station under IPC Section 376 and Section 5(j)(ii) read with Section 7 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The accused contends that he and the second respondent, initially in a relationship that began in 2018, willingly cohabited and later married; the second respondent was a minor when the alleged act occurred, but she subsequently attained majority, and the marriage was solemnized on 01.06.2019, with a child born on 19.03.2019 and another pregnancy during the period. Annexures show the final report, marriage certificate, and an affidavit by the defacto complainant endorsing the relationship and current cohabitation. The prosecution indicates the parties’ current living arrangement and the birth of a child. The court, invoking Ashiq v. State of Kerala, Saju P.R. v. State of Kerala, and Denu P. Thampi v. Ms.X, holds that in circumstances where the couple have settled, married, and are living peacefully with a child, continuing proceedings would amount to abuse of process and harassment. Therefore, for ends of substantial justice and complete justice to the parties, the court quashes the proceedings (S.C. No. 300/2019) pending before the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track I, POCSO) at Kottayam.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 376 IPCSection 5(j)(ii) read with Section 7 of POCSO Act, 2012Section 57 of the Kerala Police Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Abuse of process of court
Ends of substantial justice
Complete justice to the parties

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that the relationship began in 2018 with the victim (minor) and her family opposing it; the couple eloped, later married after the victim attained majority, and have a child. They contend that the continuing proceedings would be an abuse of process since the parties have settled, and are living peacefully together; reliance was placed on Ashiq v. State of Kerala and Saju P.R. v. State of Kerala to justify quashing in the interests of substantial justice.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the offences under IPC 376 and POCSO relate to criminal acts against a minor and require adjudication; however, given the evolved facts—marriage and settled life—the court may exercise its power to quash in the interest of justice to avoid harassment, if the ends of substantial justice necessitate it.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ashiq v. State of Kerala	2019(2) KLT 1130	Positive	Court relied on this decision to quash proceedings where the parties have amicably settled and married, serving the ends of substantial justice.
Saju P.R. v. State of Kerala	Crl.A.No.1740/2019	Positive	Apex Court approved quashing on the basis of affidavits and material showing complete justice to the parties.
Denu P. Thampi v. Ms.X and Another	2019 (3) KHC 199	Positive	Single Judge cited this as authority showing quashing is possible in light of settlement and marriage.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA** **MONDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1943** **CRL.MC NO. 4836 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** **CHRISTO JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 23 YEARS, MALAYIL HOUSE, PULLUMATTATHIL MARIDAM, KADAPLAMATTOM P.O. KOTTAYAM - 686 571** **BY ADVS. C.R.BIJU KUMAR SHEMA ELIZABETH SCARIA** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT & VICTIM CW1** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. 2 YYYY X** **BY SRI RENJIT GEORGE,PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** ## **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION** **ON 01.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **CRL.M.C.NO.4836 OF 2021** **-2-** ## **ORDER** Petitioner is the accused in crime No.331/2019 of Kidangoor police station which has been registered for the offences punishable under Section 376 IPC and Section 5(j)(ii) read with Section 7 of POCSO Act, 2012 (in short ‘ _the Act’)._ This Crl.M.C. has been filed seeking to quash final report and all further proceedings against the petitioner in the said crime. 2. It is alleged that with the intention to satisfy his lust accused had sexual intercourse with the minor victim/second respondent from 2018 onwards at his house at Maridam Pala and the victim got pregnant and gave birth to a child on 19.03.2019 and thereby accused alleged to have committed the offences aforementioned. 3. Annexure A1 is the copy of the final report in the above crime. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner and the second respondent had been in immense love and the family of the second respondent objected the relationship. Thereupon, the second respondent left the house on 15.07.2018 and had been living with the petitioner for three days at his house. Thereafter, a complaint under Section 57 of the ## **CRL.M.C.NO.4836 OF 2021** **-3-** Kerala Police Act was made by the parents of the second respondent. The petitioner along with the second respondent was produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Erattupetta. The second respondent expressed her willingness to go with the petitioner. Since she was a minor at that time, her custody was handed over to her parents. 4. According to the petitioner, he was not aware that the second respondent was a minor at the time of the alleged act. Admittedly, the second respondent conceived out of the sexual contact and gave birth to a child on 19.03.2019 at Taluk hospital, Pala. Thereupon, the hospital authorities intimated the police officials and accordingly, the crime was registered against the petitioner. He met all the hospital expenses due to the delivery of the second respondent and took the second respondent and child to his house. Subsequently, the marriage of the petitioner and the second respondent was solemnized on 01.06.2019 and Annexure A2 is the copy of the marriage certificate issued from the Marriage Officer, Kidangur. It would show that their marriage was registered on 01.06.2019. **CRL.M.C.NO.4836 OF 2021** **-4-** 5. It is further alleged that the petitioner and the second respondent is living together thereafter as husband and wife and the petitioner is looking after all the affairs of the second respondent and are now leading a happy life with their son. Annexure A3 is the notary attested affidavit sworn in by the defacto complainant, second respondent. In that affidavit, she had solemnly affirms that she had been in love with the petitioner and eloped with him on 15.07.2018 and thereafter on attaining majority, their marriage was registered and a child was born in the wedlock and apart from the petitioner, there is nobody to look after her. 6. Adv.Jayakrishnan appeared on behalf of the defacto complainant. He also reports about the settlement arrived at between the parties. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor produced copy of the statement of the facts of the case submitted by the Inspector of Police, in which also there is specific reference with regard to the marriage of the petitioner with the victim and now they are living together and a child is also born. It is also reported that the petitioner is not involved in any other crime. A copy of the signed **CRL.M.C.NO.4836 OF 2021** **-5-** statement of the defacto complainant is further produced by the learned Public Prosecutor in which also she categorically stated about the marriage and that presently they are living together happily with their son. It is also reported that she is again pregnant at present. 8. It has come out that the defacto complainant was 17 plus years old when she eloped with the petitioner and they had also been in love and thereafter, when she attained majority their marriage was also solemnized and now they are living peacefully in the house of the petitioner. So in the said circumstances, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of court. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my attention the decision of this Court in **Ashiq 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. **CRL.M.C.NO.4836 OF 2021** **-6-** 10. 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 affidavit 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 Section 376 of IPC was ultimately allowed by the Apex Court. 11. A learned Single Judge of this Court in **Denu 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, can be quashed in view of the subsequent settlement and marriage between the victim and the accused. 12. In the above backdrop, since the petitioner and the defacto complainant have already married and are living together as husband and wife with their son, continuation of the proceedings would definitely infringe their peaceful life with the child. It would also be a matter of harrassment. The defacto **-7-** ## **CRL.M.C.NO.4836 OF 2021** complainant, her son as well as the petitioner are now living together. So, for doing complete justice to the parties, I find it just and proper to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in the above crime. In the result, this Crl.M.C. stands allowed and the further proceedings pending against the petitioner in crime No.331/2019 of Kidangoor police station, which is now pending as S.C.No.300/2019 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-I (Fast Track -I, Special Court (POCSO)] Kottayam is hereby quashed. **Sd/M.R.ANITHA JUDGE** nkr **-8-** ## **CRL.M.C.NO.4836 OF 2021** ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4836/2021** PETITIONER ANNEXURE Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN S.C.NO.300/2019 ON THE FILES OF THE ADDL. SESSIONS COURT I (FAST TRACK I, SPECIAL COURT (P.O.C.S.O.) KOTTAYAM IN CRIME NO.331/2019 OF KIDANGOOR POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. (IN SEALED COVER) Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE MARRIAGE OFFICER KIDANGOOR DATED 1.6.2019. Annexure A3 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25.9.2021 (IN SEALED COVER).