Shahul v. The Station House Officer, Thanur Police Station, Malappuram District; The State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor; XX XXXXX

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN** ## **FRIDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF JULY 2024 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1946** ## **CRL.MC NO. 396 OF 2021** **CRIME NO.620/2020 OF TANUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CP NO.54 OF 2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,PARAPPANANGADI** **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **SHAHUL AGED 22 YEARS S/O. SULAIMAN, MAMMIKKANAKATH HOUSE, THANUR AMSOM DESOM, THIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM 676 302** **BY ADVS. T.G.RAJENDRAN SRI.T.R.TARIN** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** - **1 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER THANUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 302** - **2 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA , ERNAKULAM 682 031** - **3 XX XXXXX BY ADV CIBI THOMAS** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SR PP RENJIT GEORGE** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ``` CRL.MC NO. 396 OF 2021 2 ``` ## **ORDER** ## **Dated this the 19th day of July, 2024** This Crl.M.C under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner, who is the sole accused in C.P. No. 54/2020 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Parappanangady, arising out of Crime No. 620/2020 of Thannur Police Station. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. 3. The precise allegation of the prosecution is that, at 09.30 a.m., on 01.08.2020, the accused herein trespassed upon the house of the defacto complainant, where she has been residing along with his family and subjected her to rape, thereafter, he showed a knife and threatened the defacto complainant that if the occurrence would be disclosed, he would kill her. Then the matter was informed to the Police and accordingly, FIR was registered and investigation was conducted. Accordingly, Final Report filed alleging commission of the offences punishable under sections 450, 376, 323, 363, ``` CRL.MC NO. 396 OF 2021 3 ``` 506 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short hereinafter). 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently canvassed quashment of the proceedings on the strength of an affidavit and additional affidavit filed by the defacto complainant stating that the matter has been settled and an agreement in this regard has been executed in between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the sexual intercourse is the outcome of consent and therefore, in view of settlement, quashment sought for is liable to be allowed. 5. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant supported the affidavits and not opposed the quashment. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed quashment of this proceedings merely on the ground of settlement between the defacto complainant and the accused. It is submitted that going by the prosecution case, the allegations are prima facie made out and this case involving very serious offences, including Section 376 of IPC could not be quashed simply on the ground of settlement. ``` CRL.MC NO. 396 OF 2021 4 ``` 7. Going by the prosecution allegation, at 09.30 a.m., on 01.08.2020, the accused herein trespassed upon the house of the defacto complainant, where she has been residing along with his family and subjected her to rape, after threatening thereafter, she showed a knife and threatened the the defacto complainant that if the occurrence would be disclosed, he would kill her. The prosecution allegation in the above line as to commission of offences, based on the statement given by the defacto complainant and other materials is attempted to be given go bye by filing affidavit on the premise of settlement. 8. Adverting to the power of this Court to quash criminal proceedings restoring to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., indubitably, in respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. In a case of rape or attempt of rape, the conception of compromise under no circumstances can really be thought of. These are crimes against the body of a ``` CRL.MC NO. 396 OF 2021 5 ``` woman which is her own temple. These are offences which suffocate the breath of life and sully the reputation. And reputation, needless to emphasis, is the richest jewel one can conceive of in life. No one would allow it to be extinguished. When a human frame is defiled, the "purest treasure", is lost. Dignity of a woman is a part of her non-perishable and immortal self and no one should ever think of painting it in clay. There cannot be a compromise or settlement as it would be against her honour which matters the most. It is sacrosanct. Sometimes solace is given that the perpetrator of the crime has acceded to enter into wedlock with her which is nothing but putting pressure in an adroit manner; and that the Courts are to remain absolutely away from this subterfuge to adopt a soft approach to the case, for any kind of liberal approach has to be put in the compartment of spectacular error. Or to put it differently, it would be in the realm of a sanctuary of error. Such an attitude reflects lack of sensibility towards the dignity, the elan vital, of a woman. Any kind of liberal approach or thought of mediation in this regard is thoroughly and completely sans legal permissibility. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as ``` CRL.MC NO. 396 OF 2021 6 ``` murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences. In other words, grave or serious offences or offences which involve moral turpitude or have a harmful effect on the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public policy, cannot be construed betwixt two individuals or groups only, for such offences have the potential to impact the society at large. Effacing abominable offences through quashing process would not only send a wrong signal to the community, but may also accord an undue benefit to unscrupulous habitual or professional offenders, who can secure a “settlement” through duress, threats, social boycotts, bribes or other dubious means. It is well said that “let no guilty man escape, if it can be avoided.” 9. Thus, the law as it stands is that although High Court can invoke its jurisdiction u/s.482 Cr.P.C. even in noncompoundable offences and can quash the proceedings on the ``` CRL.MC NO. 396 OF 2021 7 ``` basis of settlement arrived at between the parties even in the cases of non-compoundable offences but while exercising its jurisdiction this Court must consider the fact that whether the proceeding relates to any serious and heinous offences and whether the crime in question has impact over the society. In cases of serious nature which affects the society at large this Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings on the basis of compromise executed between the parties. (See decisions in _**Gian Singh** v._ _**State of Punjab and Another**_ reported in **[(2012) 10 SCC 303],** _**Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another**_ reported in **[(2014) 9 SCC 466],** _**Shimbhu** v._ _**State of Haryana**_ reported in **[AIR 2014 Supreme Court 739]** (three Bench) **,** _**State of Madhya Pradesh** v._ _**Madanlal**_ reported in **[AIR 2015 Supreme Court 3003]** (two Bench), _**Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others** v._ _**State of Gujarat and Another**_ reported in **[(2017) 9 SCC 641],** _**State of** v. ._ _**Madhya Pradesh Laxmi Narayan & Ors**_ reported in **[(2019) 5 SCC 688],** _**Arun Singh and Others** v._ _**State of Uttar Pradesh Through its Secretary and Another**_ reported in **[(2020) (3) SCC** ``` CRL.MC NO. 396 OF 2021 8 ``` **736],** _**Ram Gopal & Another** v._ _**State of Madhya Pradesh**_ reported in **[(2021 0 Supreme (SC) 529)],** _**Daxaben** v._ _**The State of Gujarat & others**_ reported in **[2022 LiveLaw (SC) 642],** _**P.Dharmraj** v._ _**Shanmugam and others**_ decided on 8[th] September 2022 in Crl.Appeal Nos.1515-1516 of 2022). 10. Reading the facts of this case in the above line, in sjuxtaposition with the settled law, quashment of the proceedings, merely on the ground of settlement, restraining the prosecution from adducing evidence, cannot be allowed. In view of the matter, this petition must fail. 11. In the result, this petition stands dismissed. The interim stay stands vacated. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the trial court for information and compliance. **Sd/A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE** mus ``` CRL.MC NO. 396 OF 2021 9 ``` ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 396/2021** **PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CR MC 620/20 OF THANUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM. ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CP NO. 54/2020 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAPPANANGADI. ANNEXURE III ORIGINAL AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 9.01.2021. ANNEXURE IV ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 9.01.2021.**