Pramod R. v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V WEDNESDAY,THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 30TH KARTHIKA, 1940** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4780 of 2018** **CRIME NO. 1157/2017 OF NEDUMANGAD POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **PRAMOD R., S/O. MURALEEDHARAN, AGED 22 YEARS, KIZHAKKUMKARA PUTHEN VEEDU,NEDUMBAYIL, PANAYAMUTTOM P.O,PANAVOOR VILLAGE, ANAD MURI,NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.R.B.RAJESH** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT/VICTIM:** **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31 2 SEEMA, D/O.VASANTHAKUMARI, AGED 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT 'SUBHASH HOUSE' MEENILAM, MULAMOODU, PANAVOOR P.O, PANAVOOR VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695207 3 VICTIM BY ADV. SRI.N.P.PRAJEESH : PP. SMT. M.K.PUSHPALATHA** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.MC.No. 4780 of 2018 2 ## **ORDER** This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code” for brevity) with a prayer to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner. 2. The petitioner herein is the accused in S.C No.837 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court for trial of cases relating to Atrocities of Sexual violence against Women and Children, Thiruvananthapuram. In the aforesaid said case, he is accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and under Sections 366 and 376 of the IPC. 3. De facto complainant is the mother of the victim. The victim was found missing from 20.5.2017. On the basis of the information furnished by the mother, Crime No.1157 of 2017 was registered initially under Section 57 of the Kerala Police Act. On 27.5.2017, the petitioner along with the victim is alleged to have returned to the house of the de facto complainant. On the same day, information was furnished and the aforesaid Crime was registered. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner as well as the de facto complainant were in Crl.MC.No. 4780 of 2018 3 love. It is under the impression of the mother that the petitioner would not marry the victim girl, the aforesaid Crime was registered. It is further submitted that the petitioner married the victim on 18.3.2018 and they are now living as husband and wife. Reliance is placed on Annexure-4 marriage certificate issued under the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008. The learned counsel submits that now that the petitioner and the victim are living together, continuance of proceedings would be an abuse of process. 5. The 2[nd] respondent is the de facto complainant and the 3[rd] respondent is the victim. They have entered appearance through counsel. They have also filed separate affidavits before this Court attested by a notary public asserting that the marriage was indeed solemnized on 18.3.2018 and the same has been legally registered. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that since the victim and the petitioner are married and are living happily, the continuance of proceedings would only be an abuse of process. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the statement of the de facto complainant and her mother have been recorded and they have stated in clear terms that they have no subsisting grievance. Crl.MC.No. 4780 of 2018 4 7. I have considered the submissions advanced. 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 compounding the offences under Section 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 offences 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. Insofar as the offence of rape is concerned, there cannot be any doubt that the same cannot be settled on the strength of a Crl.MC.No. 4780 of 2018 5 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 noncompoundable 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 held that it would not be safe in considering the compromise arrived at between the parties in rape cases. 10. However in the instant case, it is borne out from the statement recorded by the Sub Inspector of Police that the parties were in love and the Crime was registered under the premise that the petitioner would not marry the victim. However, in view of the subsequent turn of events, she has realized that her apprehension was baseless. The parties are living together as husband and wife. There is Crl.MC.No. 4780 of 2018 6 no case for anyone that the dignity of the 3[rd] respondent was violated by a wanton act of the petitioner. This is not one of those cases wherein the allegations reek of extreme depravity, perversity or 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 the society. In the peculiar facts of the instant case, grave hardship and inconvenience will be caused to the 3[rd] respondent, if the prosecution is permitted to continue. When the 3[rd] respondent has asserted that she has married the petitioner and this fact finds corroboration from Annexure-4 certificate of marriage. She has also filed an affidavit stating that she is not desirous of prosecuting against her husband any further. In that view of the matter, the prospects of an ultimate conviction is remote and bleak even if the case is proceeded with. Furthermore, the 3[rd] respondent can continue with her life with dignity and respect. 11. 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 extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. In the result this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-10 final report laid in Crime No.1157 of 2017 of the Nedumangad Police Crl.MC.No. 4780 of 2018 7 Station now pending as S.C No.837 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court for the trial of cases relating to Atrocities of Sexual violence against Women and Children, Thiruvananthapuram are quashed. ## **Sd/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE** IAP //True Copy// P.A.To Judge Crl.MC.No. 4780 of 2018 8 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** |ANNEXURE-1:|CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1157/2017 OF| |---|---| ||NEDUMANGAD POLICE STATION| |ANNEXURE-2:|TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE| ||INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN CRIME NO.1157/17 BEFORE THE| ||COURT BELOW| |ANNEXURE-3:|TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF THE 3RD| ||RESPONDENT ISSUED FROM THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS, ANAD| ||GRAMA PANCHAYATH, DATED 26/12/2000| |ANNEXURE-4:|TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE NO.2291/2018| ||DATED 26/04/2018 ISSUED FROM THE ANAD GRAMA| ||PANCHAYATH| |ANNEXURE-5:|TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE| ||PETITIONER AND 3RD RESPONDENT/VICTIM ALONG WITH THE| ||FAMILY MEMBERS.| |ANNEXURE-6:|ORIGINAL OF NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND| ||RESPONDENT DATED 17-07-2018| |ANNEXURE-7:|ORIGINAL OF NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD| ||RESPONDENT/VICTIM DATED 17-07-2018.| |ANNEXURE-8:|TRUE COPY OFTHE PREVIOUS STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE| ||VICTIM BEFORE THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER DATED 25.5.2017.| |ANNEXURE-9:|TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE| ||VICTIM BEFORE THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER DATED 28.5.2017.| |ANNEXURE-10:|CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.1157/17 OF| ||NEDUMANGAD POLICE STATION (S.C. NO.837/18 ON THE FILE OF| ||THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT,| ||THIRUVANANTHAPURAM).| |**RESPONDENTS'**|| |**EXHIBITS:**|| NIL