Julius John v. State of Kerala and Others

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU`** ``` TUESDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 18TH ASWINA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 6080 OF 2023 ``` ``` SC 1115/2023 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT FOR CASES AGAINST ATROCITIES AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.2660/2012 OF ANGAMALY POLICE STATION) ``` ## **`PETITIONER`** ``` JULIUS JOHN AGED 39 YEARS S/O JOHN, MANGALATH HOUSE, HOUSE NO.XVIII/387, PARAKKADAV PANCHAYAT, ELAVOOR KARA, PARAKKADAV VILLAGE, ELAVOOR.P.O, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683572 BY ADV P.SHAIJAN JOSEPH ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2STATION HOUSE OFFICER ANGAMALY POLICE STATION, ANGAMALY.P.O, ALUVA TALUK., PIN - 683572 3XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX PUSHPA LETHA PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.M.C.No.6080/2023 2 ## **K.BABU, J.** **------------------** Crl.M.C.No.6080 of 2023 ----------------------------------Dated this the 10[th] day of October, 2023 ------------------------------------------------------ ## **ORDER** This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to quash Annexure A1 charge sheet and all further proceedings in S.C. No.1115/2023 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court for Cases against Atrocities and Sexual Violence against Women and Children, Ernakulam which arose from Crime No.2660/2012 of Angamaly Police Station, Ernakulam. 2. The petitioner is the sole accused in the above crime. The offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable under Section 511 of 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Respondent No.3, the defacto complainant entered appearance through counsel. She filed an affidavit stating that the petitioner/accused is a resident of her locality and that she happened to initiate the prosecution on a mistaken Crl.M.C.No.6080/2023 3 understanding of facts. It is further stated that the entire dispute between them has been settled out of Court at the instance of a Mediator. ## 4. Heard. 5. I have perused the averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn to by respondent No.3. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the Investigating Officer enquired into the matter and had taken statement of the victim, and it is reported that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled. 7. In the affidavit sworn to by Respondent No.3, it is stated thus: _“The alleged incident took place 10 years back and my age was 21 at that time. I was undergoing training as Medical Laboratory Technician during the alleged incident. The accused and I were good friends and later we became lovers and I wished to marry. The marriage could not be performed due to objection from parents. The accused did not give any false promise to me to marry. The accused did not commit rape on me as alleged in the case. All what happened was with my consent.” (sic)_ Crl.M.C.No.6080/2023 4 8. The material placed before the Court would reveal that the entire dispute between the parties has been settled amicably. The victim/respondent No.3 has stated that she is not intending to proceed with the matter. 9. In **Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and Others [(2014) 6 SCC 466]** , the Apex Court held that the High Court, invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C., can quash criminal proceedings in relation to non-compoundable offences, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves in the cases not falling within the category of serious offences or heinous offences. In **Narinder Singh** (supra), the Apex Court held thus: _"29. No doubt that the learned ASG is right in relying on various judgments of this Court which reiterate the legal position that in heinous and serious offences like murder or rape, the Court should not quash the proceedings. It will be relevant to refer to paragraph 29.5 to 29.7 of the judgment of this Court in the case of Narender Singh v. State of Punjab 1 , which read thus:_ _29.5 While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of_ Crl.M.C.No.6080/2023 5 _conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases._ _29.6 Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of_ Crl.M.C.No.6080/2023 6 _conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship._ _29.7 While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the_ Crl.M.C.No.6080/2023 7 _circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime."_ 10. The Apex Court held that the High Court shall be slow in quashing the proceedings wherein heinous and serious offences are involved. The Apex Court, however, clarified that the High Court is not foreclosed from examining as to whether there exists material for incorporation of such an offence or as to whether Crl.M.C.No.6080/2023 8 there is sufficient evidence which, if proved, would lead to proving the charge for the offence alleged. The Apex Court further observed that the High Court has to take into consideration as to whether the settlement between the parties would result into harmony between them. 11. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses and other materials placed before this Court. They do not reveal the offence alleged. The victim has specifically stated in the affidavit that the petitioner committed no offences against her. Even if the criminal trial is permitted to go ahead, it will end in acquittal. If the request of the petitioner and the victim is denied, it will only amount to harassment of both the petitioner and the victim. Therefore, I find that though the offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 511 of 376 of I.P.C, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. In the result, Annexure A2 charge sheet and all further proceeding in S.C. No.1115/2023 on the file of the Additional Crl.M.C.No.6080/2023 9 District Court for Cases against Atrocities and Sexual Violence against Women and Children, Ernakulam stand hereby quashed. **K.BABU, JUDGE** jsr/