Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeFIR and all proceedings quashed; petition allowed.

Sherin Lal S.S. v. State of Kerala and Victim (2nd Respondent)

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC:4203/18

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.
Judgment Date
2019-01-11
Court Decision / Holding
The petition is allowed; the FIR in Crime No. 729/2018 and all proceedings thereunder are quashed under Section 482 CrPC, acknowledging that the parties have married, are living as husband and wife, and that continuing prosecution would cause grave hardship to the 2nd respondent. The court notes the absence of any cruelty or depravity in the facts presented and relies on the changed circumstances to exercise the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction in the interests of justice.
Final Disposition
FIR and all proceedings quashed; petition allowed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Sherin Lal S.S.

Respondents

  • State of Kerala (through the Sub-Inspector, Ernakulam Town North Police Station)
  • Victim (2nd Respondent)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri.T.B. Hood
  • • Sri.M.Is ha
  • • Sri.Amal Kasha

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Public Prosecutor (State of Kerala)
  • • Sri.B.S. SYAMANTHAK (for the 2nd Respondent)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal miscellaneous case under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash Crime No. 729/2018 registered at Ernakulam Town North Police Station, initially under IPC sections 323 (hurt) and 376 (rape) along with provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(va)). The petitioner, Sherin Lal S.S., contends that the case was registered on a mistaken premise that the accused would not marry the alleged victim. However, soon after registration, the petitioner and the 2nd respondent married and began living as husband and wife, supported by Annexure IV (certificate of marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954). The 2nd respondent, through her counsel, concedes there is no grievance and requests no continuation of the prosecution in light of the changed circumstances. The learned Public Prosecutor was directed to verify facts and the victim’s statement; it is noted that the couple is living together. The court recognises the settled legal position that the power to quash is distinct from compounding under Section 320 CrPC and must be exercised in light of the facts, seriousness of the crime, and public interest. While rape is generally non-compoundable, the peculiar facts—mutual affection, marriage, and lack of clear prosecutorial interest—motivate the extraordinary exercise of the court’s inherent power. The court ultimately quashes the FIR and proceedings, allowing the petition.

Provisions of Law Cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 482Indian Penal Code, Section 323Indian Penal Code, Section 376Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va)Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 320

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings are distinct from compounding under Section 320 CrPC and must be guided by the facts and gravity of the offence.
  • Rape is a non-compoundable offence and an offence against society; compromise between victim and accused is generally not permissible.
  • Guidance from Supreme Court precedents that quashing depends on facts and gravity; serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity cannot be quashed.
  • Rape cannot be settled through compromise in light of potential coercion, trauma, and the public interest in protecting victims."
  • Cited authorities referenced in the decision: Gian Singh v. State of Punjab; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab; State of M.P. v. Madan Lal; Shimbhu and Another v. State of Haryana

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicant contends that the registration of the crime was based on a mistaken premise that the petitioner would not marry the victim. After the alleged crime, the parties solemnised their marriage (Special Marriage Act) and now live together as husband and wife. Annexure IV confirms the marriage. Since the relationship has evolved, the prosecution would entail futility and hardship for the 2nd respondent. The petition seeks quashing under the High Court’s inherent power (Section 482 CrPC). It is argued that the offence, while serious, does not involve depravity or violence constituting a public injury beyond the private dispute, and that the changed circumstances and the 2nd respondent’s stated unwillingness to prosecute weigh in favour of quashing. The court is urged to exercise caution in light of Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, but to harmonise public interest with the present facts by quashing the FIR and proceedings.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents emphasise that rape is a serious, non-compoundable offence and that the power to quash should not be exercised to defeat the ends of justice in cases involving sexual violence. They point out that the victim’s consent, even in the context of a compromised settlement, cannot be presumed genuine, and the court should consider the gravity of the crime and its impact on society. However, the 2nd respondent’s stance in her affidavit and the parties’ marriage complicate the scenario, raising questions about ongoing prosecution and the need to protect the victim’s dignity and legal rights. The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, supports a careful examination of the facts in light of the controlling precedents, but emphasizes that the decision must ensure public interest and not undermine the integrity of criminal justice.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab(2012) 10 SCC 303PositiveCited as guiding principle for exercising inherent powers under 482 CrPC and for distinguishing quashing from compounding; used to underscore that heinous offences like rape usually resist quashing, but the Court may consider exceptional circumstances.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab(2014) 6 SCC 466PositiveCited alongside Gian Singh to reinforce the principle that, despite settlements, certain offences, including rape, are not private disputes and may not be quashed absent compelling reasons.
State of M.P. v. Madan Lal(2015) 7 SCC 681PositiveUsed to reinforce that rape remains non-compoundable and that the court must ensure the consent in compromise is genuine and voluntary; supports the Court’s caution in cases involving sexual offences.
Shimbhu and Another v. State of Haryana(2014) 13 SCC 318PositiveCited as authority for the proposition that consent and compromise in rape cases are fraught with risks and cannot be assumed; informs the reasoning that rape is non-compoundable.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Sherin Lal S.S. v. State of Kerala and Victim (2nd Respondent) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 21ST POUSHA, 1940** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4203 of 2018** **CRIME NO.729/2018 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM CITY** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **SHERIN LAL S.S., S/O.SASEENDRA BABU, AGED 23 YEARS, MAHALEKSHMI, THUMBODU, KALLARA PO, NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 608.** **BY ADVS. SRI.T.B.HOOD SMT.M.ISHA SRI.AMAL KASHA** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & VICTIM:** **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM CITY, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-682031. 2 VICTIM...** **BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SYAMANTHAK** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI. T. R. RENJITH PP.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** CRL.MC:4203/18 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 Crime No.729 of 2018 registered at the Ernakulam Town North Police Station under Sections 323, 376 of the IPC and under Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. The 2[nd] respondent is the de facto complainant. According to the prosecution, she was in love with the petitioner herein. He is alleged to have assured her that he would marry her and her consent was deceitfully obtained for having a sexual relationship. On 8.4.2018 at about 7.30 p.m., he is alleged to have subjected her to rape. Later, when the petitioner resiled from his promise, she lodged the F.I.Statement, based on which the subject crime was registered. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the crime was registered under the mistaken premise CRL.MC:4203/18 3 that the petitioner would not marry the victim. However, immediately after registration of the crime, the petitioner married the 2[nd] respondent and they are now living together as husband and wife. In order to establish the said fact, he would refer to AnnexureIV, certificate of marriage issued under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. 5. The 2[nd] respondent, who has entered appearance through her counsel, supported the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and he would contend that the crime was registered as she was under the impression that the petitioner would not marry her. The learned counsel has referred to the affidavit sworn to by the 2[nd] respondent and it is submitted that she has no further grievance. In view of the change in circumstances, the continuance of proceedings would be nothing, but a futile exercise, contends the learned counsel. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor was directed to get instructions. The officer has recorded the statement of the victim and it is reported that the accused and the victim are living together as husband and wife. CRL.MC:4203/18 4 6. I have considered the submissions advanced and have perused the materials made available. 7. 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 a 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 offenses 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** CRL.MC:4203/18 5 **Punjab** [(2014) 6 SCC 466 ] serve as guiding lights. 8. Insofar as the offence of rape is concerned, there cannot be any doubt that the same cannot be settled on the strength of a 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 non-compoundable 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. CRL.MC:4203/18 6 9. However, in the instant case, it is borne out from the statement of the 2[nd] respondent 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 no case for anyone that the dignity of the 2[nd] 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 society. In the peculiar facts of the instant case, grave hardship and inconvenience will be caused to the 2[nd] respondent, if the prosecution is permitted to continue. When the 2[nd] respondent has asserted that she has married the petitioner and this fact finds corroboration from Annexure-AIV certificate of marriage. She has also filed an affidavit stating that she is not desirous of prosecuting 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 2[nd] respondent can continue with her life with dignity and respect. CRL.MC:4203/18 7 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-AI FIR in Crime No.729 of 2018 registered at the Ernakulam Town North Police Station and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner are quashed. ## **Sd/-** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE** KRJ //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE CRL.MC:4203/18 8 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE AI:** **CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.729/2018 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, ALONG WITH THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.934/2018 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE AII : TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 27-5-2018 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **ANNEXURE AIII : AFFIDAVIT DATED 25-6-2018 SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **ANNEXURE AIV: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE DATED 11.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE MARRIAGE OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA.**