Hassainar P.K. @ Ashraf and Abdul Azeez v. Circle Inspector of Police, Kumbla, Manjeshwar Police Station, Kasaragod District; Abdul Rahiman S/o Andu; Nabeeesa W/o Abdul Rahiman; Kairunniza D/o Abdul Rahiman; Ayshath Misriya D/o Abdul Rahiman; State of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ## PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2017/31ST JYAISHTA, 1939 Crl.MC.No. 3859 of 2017 () -------------------------IN SC 434/2015 of ADDL.DIST & SC -1 (SPECIAL COURT UNDER POCSO ACT), KASARAGOD CRIME NO. 738/2012 OF MANJESWAR POLICE STATION , KASARGOD ## PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS. 1 AND 2: ------------------------------------------------ 1. HASSAINAR.P.K.@ ASHRAF S/O. ABDUL KHADER, AGED 36 YEARS,BADARIYA HOUSE, PAVOOR, VORKADY PANCHAYATH, 1/216, KASARAGOD. 2. ABDUL AZEEZ, - S/O. ABDUL RAHMAN,AGED 26 YEARS, BADANADKA HOUSE, PAVOOR KALLAJE HOUSE, VORKADY GRAMAM, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN ## RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KUMBLA, MANJESHWAR POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 122. 2. ABDUL RAHIMAN , S/O. ANDU, AGED 54 YEARS, BADANADKA HOUSE, PAVOOR KALLAJE, PAVOOR P.O MANJESHWAR TALUK, KASARAGOD. 3. NABEESA, W/O. ANDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDING DO. 4. KAIRUNNIZA, D/O. ADUL RAHIMAN, AGED 20 YEARS, RESIDING DO 5. AYSHATH MISRIYA, AGED 19 YEARS,D/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN, KALLAJE HOUSE, PAVOOR P.O, VORKADY VILLAGE, MANJESHWAR TALUK,KASARAGOD. 6. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031 R2-R5 BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS R1&R6 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI E C BINEESH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-062017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 3859 of 2017 () --------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------------------- ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT. ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20.10.2016. ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 20.10.2016. ANNEXURE IV TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 20.10.2016. ANNEXURE V TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 20.10.2016. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL ----------------------- // True Copy // PA to Judge ## **B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No.3859 of 2017 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21[st ] day of June 2017 ## O R D E R The petitioners are the accused in S.C.No.434 of 2015 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court (Special Court for Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act Cases), Kasaragod. 2. The prosecution allegation is that the first petitioner kidnapped the minor _de-facto complainant_ , aged 16 years to a building in Sakalesapuram in Karnataka during June 2012, along with the second petitioner, who is the brother of the minor victim girl, in a car and thereafter, the first petitioner committed rape on her so many times Crl.M.C.3859/2017 -: 2 :- with the active assistance of the second petitioner. The police after completing the investigation laid the charge before the court for the offences under Sections 366(A) and 376 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 3. The petitioners in this Crl.M.C. seek for quashing Annexure-I final report and further proceedings against the petitioners on the ground that the matter has been settled between the parties. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the _de-facto complainant_ had already married another person and she is presently settled in life and hence, if the prosecution against the petitioners is permitted to be continued, that will affect the future of the _de-facto complainant_ . The _de-facto complainant_ filed Annexure-IV affidavit stating that the Crl.M.C.3859/2017 -: 3 :- matter has been settled and hence, she has no further grievance against the petitioners. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the request of the petitioners and submitted that this is a typical example to show that a woman is not safe even in her house and in the said circumstances, if the said offences are effaced by quashing the proceedings, that will give wrong signal to the society. 5. The Honourable Apex Court in Yogendra Yadav and others v. State of Jharkhand and another (2014 KHC 4470) held that the offences which involve moral turpitude and grave offences like rape, murder etc. cannot be effaced by quashing the proceedings because that will have harmful effect on the society as the said offences cannot be said to be restricted to two individuals or two groups. The Crl.M.C.3859/2017 -: 4 :- Honourable Apex Court observed in Yogendra Yadav (supra) that if such offences are quashed, it may send wrong signal to the society. 6. The Honourable Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another (2014 KHC 4195) held that the heinous and serious offences of mental depravity and offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc., should not be quashed by exercising the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as the said offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on the society. 7. In this case, the second petitioner is the brother of the minor victim girl. He was having a duty to protect and safeguard the interest of the minor victim girl. However, instead of protecting her interest, he himself became the tormentor and permitted the first petitioner to commit rape ## Crl.M.C.3859/2017 -: 5 :- on the victim with his active assistance. The offences alleged against the petitioners are very serious in nature. If such offences are permitted to be effaced by quashing the proceedings, that will have harmful effect on the society as the above said offences cannot be said to be restricted to two individuals or two groups. 8. It is also pertinent to note that the 1[st] petitioner committed rape on another sister of the 2[nd] petitioner also, with the active assistance of the 2[nd] petitioner, for which S.C.No.581 of 2015 is pending. This would show that the 2[nd] petitioner facilitated the first accused to commit rape on both his sisters, which is beyond the expectation and imagination of a dignified society. The second sister of the 2[nd] petitioner is still unmarried. She was raped when she was 14 years of age. If the offences against such Crl.M.C.3859/2017 -: 6 :- persons are quashed in exercise of the inherent power, that will definitely lead to anarchy. Moreover, if the offences against such persons are permitted to be effaced by quashing the proceedings, that will give wrong signal to the society. Considering the nature and seriousness of the allegations raised against the petitioners, I am not inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioners on the ground that the matter has been settled between the parties. In the result, this Crl.M.C. stands dismissed. Sd/- ## **B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE** _dl/21.6.2017_