Rajesh, Jithesh and Satheesh v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/28TH POUSHA 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 8173 of 2016 ()** **---------------------------** **SC 451/2010 OF 1ST ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA. CRIME NO.147/2006 OF RANNI POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA.** **..........** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:** **----------------------------** **1. RAJESH, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.SASI @ SASANKAN, RESIDING AT MANU SADANAM, MUKKOOTTUTHARA MURI, ERUMELI SOUTH VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM.** **2. JITHESH, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.UNNIKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT MADOLIL VEEDU, IDAPPAVOOR, AIYROOR MURI & VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA.** **3. SATHEESH @ VAVA, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT MALAYIRIKKUNATHIL VEEDU, MATTUMECHIL, NARANGANAM MURI & VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA** ## **BY ADV. SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN** **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT CW2, 3: ------------------------------------------------** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RANNY POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA - 682031.** **2. RINU TOM GEORGE, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.TOMICHAN GEORGE, RESIDING AT KANJIKUZHIYIL HOUSE, RANNI (PO), THEKKEPURAM, RANNI VILLAGE & TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689649.** **--2--** **--2--** ## **Crl.MC.No. 8173 of 2016 () -------------------------** **3. RINI ANNA TOM, AGED 26 YEARS, D/O.TOMICHAN GEORGE, RESIDING AT KANJIKUZHIYIL HOUSE, RANNI (PO), THEKKEPURAM, RANNI VILLAGE & TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 649.** **4. MARIAMMA TOMICHAN, AGED 57 YEARS, W/O.TOMICHAN GEORGE, RESIDING AT KANJIKUZHIYIL HOUSE, RANNI (PO), THEKKEPURAM, RANNI VILLAGE & TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 649.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.E.C.BINEESH R2 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.SIDHARTH NAMBIAR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **mbr/** ## **Crl.MC.No. 8173 of 2016 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE A1 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.147/2006 OF RANNY POLICE STATION PATHANAMTHITTA NOW PENDING AS SC.NO. 451/2010 ON THE FILES OF 1ST ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA.** **ANNEXURE A2 : THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVITS SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19.11.2016.** **ANNEXURE A3 : THE ORIGINALS OF THE AFFIDAVITS SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 19.11.2016.** **ANNEXURE A4 : THE ORIGINALS OF THE AFFIDAVITS SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 19.11.2016.** **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** ## **mbr/** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V., J. -----------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.8173 of 2016** **-----------------------------------------** - Dated this the 18[th] day of January, 2017 ## **O R D E R ~~~~~~~~** - 1.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 petitioners. - 2.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 to 3 in S.C.No.451 of 2010 on the files of the 1[st] additional Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta. In the aforesaid case, they face indictment under Section 366(A), 109 read with Section 34 of the IPC. - 3.The 3[rd] respondent herein, while she was just over 16 years of age, fell in love with the 1[st] petitioner herein. The 2[nd] respondent herein is the elder brother of the 3[rd] respondent and the 4[th] respondent is her mother. The **Crl.M.C.No.8173/2016** **-2-** relationship was strongly opposed by the family. The 1[st] petitioner and the 3[rd] respondent decided to elope. The prosecution alleges that at some time between 8 a.m. on 1.4.2006 and 10 a.m. on 2.4.2006, the 1[st] petitioner with the active assistance of petitioners 2 and 3 abducted the 3[rd] respondent from her house at Thekkepuram Ranni. On 2.4.2006, the 2[nd] respondent approached the Sub Inspector of Police, Ranni Police Station and gave a statement based on which, Crime No.147 of 2006 was registered under Section 366A of the IPC. The 1[st] petitioner and the 3[rd] respondent were later found in the house of one Soman, a relative of the 1[st] petitioner. The 3[rd] respondent was permitted to go with her parents and the 1[st] petitioner was arrested and remanded. When investigation revealed that the petitioners 2 and 3 had abetted the commission of the offence, they were also roped in as accused Nos. 2 and 3. Investigation was ## **Crl.M.C.No.8173/2016** **-3-** conducted and final report was laid before the jurisdictional court. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the materials would reveal that the 3[rd] respondent was in love with the 1[st] petitioner and when they were found in the parental house together at unseemly hours, the father of the 3[rd] respondent had beaten her and had asked her to leave the house. It is submitted that the petitioners had neither abducted nor kidnapped the 3[rd] respondent but she had come along with the 1[st] petitioner in the aforementioned circumstances. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the 3[rd] respondent is now happily married and is the mother of two children and she is residing with her husband at Sharjah. According to the learned counsel, the respondents 2 to 4 have filed separate affidavits wherein they have asserted that they have no grievance and they have no objection in **Crl.M.C.No.8173/2016** **-4-** quashing the proceedings. - 5.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 contended that the 3[rd] respondent has entered a new phase in her life and is living with her husband and children in a foreign country. She is not desirous of reopening the forgettable incidents which took place during the early part of her life and according to the learned counsel, calling upon her to depose in a case such as the instant one will be detrimental to her family life. The learned counsel submits that in view of the peculiar facts of the instant case, it is only just and proper that this Court invokes its extraordinary powers to bring the criminal proceedings to a premature termination. - 6.The learned Public Prosecutor was directed to get instructions. The investigating officer has recorded the statements of the victim and her family members and the **Crl.M.C.No.8173/2016** **-5-** same has been produced before the court. The respondents 2 to 4, who are the de facto complainant, the victim as well as her mother, have unequivocally stated before the police officer that they are not desirous of pursuing the prosecution proceedings at this stage. It is also stated that the statements made by them in Annexures-A2 to A4 affidavits are genuine and they have no serious objection in terminating the criminal prosecution. 7.Heard the submissions. 8.The position with regard to quashing of proceedings on the basis of compromise between the parties is by now well settled. In **Gian singh v. State of Punjab** [(2012) 10 SCC 303], 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 **Crl.M.C.No.8173/2016** **-6-** 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_ _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_ **Crl.M.C.No.8173/2016** **-7-** _(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.From the final report, it appears that the 3[rd] respondent and the 1[st] petitioner was in love. The incident had occurred about 11 years back. The 2[nd] respondent had left the house when she was caught red handed with the 1[st] petitioner herein. The 3[rd] respondent has since then got married and is living a perfect family life with her husband and two children. I am of the view that it will not be in the interest of the 3[rd] respondent to force her to give evidence in a case, when her predominant wish is to erase that very incident from her memory and her life. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the various aspects of the instant case, I am of the view that the settlement arrived at between the parties can be taken **Crl.M.C.No.8173/2016** **-8-** note of to protect the interest of both the parties. In the fact scenario grave hardship and inconvenience will be caused to the 3[rd] respondent if the prosecution is permitted to continue. When the 3[rd] respondent herself has asserted that she is not inclined to prosecute the petitioner any further, the prospects of an ultimate conviction is remote and bleak. Further more, the 3[rd] respondent can continue with her life without the stigma. - 11.I am also of the considered view that the allegations raised would not fall in the category of offences that has a serious impact on the society. Extreme depravity, perversity or cruelty is not revealed. On the other hand, the continuance of the criminal proceedings can cause irreparable hardship to the victim and her family members. **Crl.M.C.No.8173/2016** **-9-** 12. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A1 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as S.C.No.451 of 2010 on the files of the 1[st] Additional Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V. JUDGE** Ps/19/1/17