P.S. Manoj Das v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1940** **Crl.MC.No. 4248 of 2018** **LPC NO.61/2017 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -I, HOSDRUG CRIME NO.30/2012 OF AMBALATHARA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD** ## **PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:** **P.S.MANOJ DAS, S/O.SUBRAHMANYA DAS, AGED 46 YEARS, PULIKKAL HOUSE, KOORKKANCHERY, KANIMANGALAM P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.T.MADHU SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE:** **1 THE STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, AMBALATHARA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. 2 VICTIM. .....** **R2 BY ADV. SMT.G.SANGEETHA R1 BY SRI.C.K.PRASAD, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.11.2018 ALONG WITH CRL.MC. 4258/218, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1940** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4258 of 2018** **SC NO.693/2016 ON THE FILES OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - I, KASARAGOD IN CRIME NO. 30/2012 OF AMBALATHARA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 3 TO 5:** **1 MAYA SREENIVASAN, W/O.SREENIVASAN, AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT PERIYATHRA HOUSE, KANIMANGALAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2 V.V.CHANDRAN, S/O.VELYUDHAN, AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANIMANGALAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3 P.S.SREENIVASAN S/O.SUDHAKARAN, AGED 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT PERIYATHRA HOUSE, KANIMANGALAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.T.MADHU SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE:** **1 THE STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, AMBALATHARA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. 2 VICTIM. .....** **R2 BY ADV. SMT.G.SANGEETHA** **R1 SRI C K PRASAD, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.11.2018 ALONG WITH CRL.MC:4248/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.No. 4248 & 4258 of 2018** **3** ## **ORDER** These petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the Code” for brevity) with a prayer to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners. 2. The petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.4248 of 2018 is the 1[st] accused and the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.4258 of 2018 are the accused Nos. 3 to 5 in Crime No.30 of 2012 of the Ambalathara Police Station, Kasaragod. The aforesaid crime was registered on 06.02.2012, based on the information furnished by the 2[nd] respondent herein under Sections 420, 376 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. According to the de facto complainant, the petitioners herein suppressing the factum of the previous marriage of the 1[st] accused, approached the de facto complainant and asked for her hand in marriage. Believing the words of the accused, the de facto complainant married the 1[st] accused on 29.12.2018 and they started living together as husband and wife. They had sexual intercourse during the period when they were together. In course of time, their **Crl.MC.No. 4248 & 4258 of 2018** **4** relationship became strained and the parties fell apart. She realised that the 1[st] accused was earlier married and this fact was suppressed from her. The crime was registered and after investigation, final report was laid before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Hosdurg. The 1[st] accused did not appear before the court. The proceedings against him were split up. The case against the accused Nos.2 to 5 were committed to the Court of Session, where the same is pending as S.C.No. 693 of 2016. In the course of proceedings, the 2[nd] accused expired on 8.2.2018 and the case against her abated. The case against the 1[st] accused was removed to the list of Long Pending Cases and is now pending as L.P.No.61 of 2017. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners advanced two fold contentions. It is submitted that the de facto complainant is the wife of the 1[st] accused and the Crime was registered when their relationship was strained. It is submitted that the de facto complainant has now come forward and have stated that the entire disputes have been resolved and she is not desirous of prosecuting the petitioners. The learned counsel would also contend that the offence of rape is not made out in the instant case. According to the **Crl.MC.No. 4248 & 4258 of 2018** **5** learned counsel, even if the allegations are admitted as such, only offences under Sections 494 and 495 of the IPC are made out. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent, who entered appearance, would support the contentions of the petitioners and it was submitted that the entire disputes have been settled and the parties have parted ways. It is also submitted that the 2[nd] respondent has no subsisting grievance. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor was directed to get instructions. It is submitted that the statement of the victim has been recorded and she has now stated in unmistakable terms that she has no further grievance. 7. I have considered the submissions advanced. Admittedly, the 1[st] accused had married the de facto complainant and they had resided together for sometime. The allegation is that the petitioners had suppressed the fact that the 1[st] accused was earlier married. However, now the 2[nd] respondent has come forward and have stated that the crime was registered under some misconception. Even **Crl.MC.No. 4248 & 4258 of 2018** **6** otherwise, on facts, it does not appear that the offence of rape is made out in the instant case. ## 8. In **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303** , the Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. It was observed as follows : _“61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”_ 9. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in ## **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC 466,** the pertinent observations which are as under: ## _XXXXXXXXXXXX_ **Crl.MC.No. 4248 & 4258 of 2018** **7** _29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:_ ## _(i) ends of justice, or_ _(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives._ _xxxxxxx_ ## _xxxxxxx_ 10. Having gone through the materials, I am of the considered view that the continuance of proceedings against the petitioners herein would be nothing, but an abuse of process. There is no case for anyone that the dignity of the 2[nd] respondent was violated by a wanton act of the petitioners. 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 society. 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. **Crl.MC.No. 4248 & 4258 of 2018** **8** In the result, these petitions will stand allowed. All further proceedings pursuant thereto against the 1[st] accused in Annexure-A2 final report now pending as L.P.C No.61 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg and the proceedings against the accused Nos. 3 to 5 in Annexure-A2 final report now pending as S.C.No.693 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court- I, Kasaragod are quashed. ## **Sd/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE** DSV/- **Crl.MC.No. 4248 & 4258 of 2018** **9** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE-1. THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.30/2012 OF AMBALATHARA POLICE. ANNEXURE-2. THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.30/2012 OF AMBALATHARA POLICE. ANNEXURE-3. THE AFFIDVIT DATED 29/6/2018 SWORN IN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** ## **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A.TO JUDGE**