High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-03-19Criminal Miscellaneous Case Stands dismissed

Shibin Sasi v. State of Kerala and 2nd respondent (defacto complainant)

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No.1360 of 2018

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Alexander Thomas
Judgment Date: 2019-03-19
Court Decision / Holding: With the observations and directions stated, the Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C.No.1360/2018) is dismissed; quashment under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. is not warranted on the facts presented, given the gravamen of the offence and lack of bona fide settlement evidenced by the facts. The court clarifies that the observations are limited to this case and do not prejudice the rights of the parties in other proceedings.
Final Disposition: Criminal Miscellaneous Case Stands dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Shibin Sasi

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Sooranadu Police Station, through the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Victim (2nd respondent)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri K. Siju
• Smt. S. Seetha

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri A. Amjad Ali (Public Prosecutor for R1, State of Kerala)
• Sri A. Muhammed Raffi (for R2)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Sec.482 Cr.P.C filed by the sole accused, Shibin Sasi, challenging the final report (Anx-2) in Crime No.1709/2015 of the Sooranadu Police Station, which empowered the filing of S.C.No.156/2017 before the III Additional Sessions Court, Kollam. The allegations in Crime No.1709/2015 include offences punishable under Sec.376 IPC (rape) and Sec.67A of the IT Act, arising from the accused allegedly engaging in deceptive conduct by promising marriage and coercing sexual activity with the defacto complainant, including the taking of nude photographs and threats to publish them. The 2nd respondent-defacto complainant has since married another person and seeks quashment on grounds of settlement, supported by Annexure-A3 affidavit dated 31/1/2018. The petitioner contends that continued prosecution would cause mental agony and that the disputes have been bona fide settled, warranting abuse of the court’s inherent power under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. The State opposes quashment, arguing rape is a grave and socially sensitive offence not readily quashable, regardless of settlement. Relying on a line of Supreme Court and Kerala High Court authorities, the court acknowledges that extraordinary powers can be exercised in certain civil/commercial dispute-like settlements, but clarifies that this is not an open-ended license for grave offences, particularly where the victim’s safety and societal interest are implicated. The court ultimately holds that the facts do not establish marriage between the accused and the victim and that the plea for quashment is not bona fide in the present case, dismissing the petition. The decision reiterates the narrow scope for quashing in cases involving grave offences, while leaving open the possibility of appropriate action at trial.

Provisions of Law Cited

Sec.482 Cr.P.C.Sec.376 IPCSec.67(A) IT Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inherent powers of the High Court under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. to quash in deserving cases.
Settlement of disputes may warrant quashment in non-grave civil/commercial disputes, as recognized in certain precedents.
Rape offences are generally not amenable to quashment on the ground of settlement, as they affect public interest and womanhood.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicant argued that the impugned final report (Anx-2) in Crime No.1709/2015 should be quashed under the inherent powers of the High Court (Sec.482 Cr.P.C.) on the ground that the disputes between the accused and the defacto complainant have been settled by affidavit (Annexure-A3) and that continuing proceedings would cause mental agony and hamper the victim’s matrimonial life. They relied on settled line of authority allowing quashment where disputes are civil/commercial in nature and where such settlements are genuine and bona fide, seeking to bring finality and relief to the parties.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that rape (Sec.376 IPC) and acts under the IT Act are grave, socially condemnable offences that affect the public interest and cannot be quashed merely on the basis of a settlement of disputes between the parties. They emphasized that recent precedents require caution in using Sec.482 Cr.P.C. to discharge proceedings in cases involving sexual offences, unless the settlement is bona fide and the facts satisfy exceptional circumstances. The State argued that there was no substantiated case that the victim and accused have entered into a marriage, which weakens the basis for quashing, and that trial should proceed to safeguard justice for the victim and society.

Cited Precedents (6)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Shimbhu & Anr. v. State of Haryana	2014 (13) SCC 318	Positive	Used to support the proposition that rape cases are not easily quashed on settlements; serves as a caution against using extraordinary powers to terminate rape prosecutions.
Freddy @ Antony Francis & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr.	2017 KHC 344 = 2018 (1) KLD 558	Positive	Cited to illustrate exceptions where settlements can lead to quashing when bona fide and in the best interest of the victim, particularly where the accused marries the victim.
Anita Maria Dias v. State of Maharashtra	2018 (3) SCC 290	Positive	Cited for the principle that rape is not generally amenable to quashment by settlement, reinforcing the social injury involved.
State of Kerala v. 2015 KLJ 384	—	Mentioned Only	Listed among precedents in the regional context; used to frame the Kerala High Court’s position but not directly relied upon for the outcome.
Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat	2017 9 SCC 641	Mentioned Only	Referenced as part of the catena of rulings on quashing, without explicit reliance in the present case on its holdings.
Sebastian @ Solly v. State of Kerala	—	Mentioned Only	Cited in the discussion of Kerala jurisprudence on quashing, without a direct application to the present facts.

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 Shibin Sasi v. State of Kerala and 2nd respondent (defacto complainant) 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 ALEXANDER THOMAS** **TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1940** **Crl.MC.No. 1360 of 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 156/2017 of III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM** **CRIME NO. 1709/2015 OF Sooranadu Police Station , Kollam** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **SHIBIN SASI, S/O.SASIDHARAN, AGED 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT THAYYIL THARAYIL VEEDU, VALIYAKULANGARA MURI, OACHIRA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.SIJU SMT.S.SEETHA** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SOORANADU POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2 VICTIM.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.A.MUHAMMED RAFFI** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1, SRI.A.MUHAMMED RAFFI FOR R2** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ::2:: **Crl.MC.No. 1360 of 2018** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J** . --------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.1360 Of 2018 --------------------------------Dated this the 19[th] day of March, 2019. ## **O R D E R** The prayers in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case filed under the enabling provisions under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for quashment of the impugned Anx-2 final report in Crime No.1709/2015 of Sooranadu Police Station, which led to the institution of S.C.No.156 of 2017 on the file of III Additional Sessions Court, Kollam, on the ground of settlement arrived between the petitioner accused and 2[nd] respondent-defacto complainant (victim). 2. Heard Sri.Siju Kamalasanan, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused, Sri.Amjad Ali, learned Prosecutor appearing for 1[st] respondent-State of Kerala and Sri.A.Muhammed Raffi, learned counsel appearing for 2[nd] respondent-lady defacto complainant (victim). 3. The petitioner is the sole accused in Anx-1 Crime No.1709 of 2015 of Sooranadu Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Sec.376 IPC & Sec.67(A) ::3:: ## **Crl.MC.No. 1360 of 2018** of the I.T.Act. The Investigating Officer, after completing the investigation has filed Anx-2 final report in Anx-1 Crime No.1709/2015 of Sooranadu Police Station and after completing the necessary formalities led to the Institution of S.C.No.156/2017 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Court, Kollam. 4. The brief of the prosecution allegation is that the petitioner-accused and the 2[nd] respondent-lady defacto complainant were studying together for BBA course in the year 2014, the accused by promising marriage and pretending love attempted to commit sexual intercourse with the defacto complainant and forced her to have oral sex with him and it is further alleged that the accused had taken nude photographs of her and threatened to publish the same and thus committed the offences. 5. It is stated that the 2[nd] respondent-lady defacto complainant has now married another person and leading a peaceful matrimonial life and any further prosecution in the above crime will result in mental agony and difficulty to the 2[nd] respondent and any further steps in going forward with the prosecution in the instant crime will result in great mental agony ::4:: ## **Crl.MC.No. 1360 of 2018** and difficulty to the 2[nd] respondent and matrimonial life. Hence the case projected by the 2[nd] respondent-lady defacto complainant is that she herself had voluntarily settled all the disputes with the petitioner-accused and sworn to Anx-3 affidavit dated 31.1.2018 stating that she has settled all the disputes with the petitioner and that in the light of the marriage with another person continuation of the above proceedings would be detrimental to the family life of the 2[nd] respondent and this Court may quash the impugned proceedings in view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioner and the 2[nd] respondent- lady defacto complainant. 6. It is by now well established by a catena of rulings of the Apex Court and various High Courts including this Court that even non compoundable offences, which emanates from commercial disputes, could be quashed by this Court in exercise of inherent extra ordinary powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C on the basis of settlement between the accused and defacto complainant such approach for quashment on the ground of settlement should not be resorted to by the High Courts especially in cases involving grave and heinous crimes like dacoity, rape, corruption of charges under the PC Act, etc. Recently a 3 Judge Bench of the Apex Court ::5:: ## **Crl.MC.No. 1360 of 2018** in the judgment dated 5.3.2019 rendered in a Criminal Appeal has dealt with various issues and dimensions of the cases arising out of quashment of the criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between the parties and has held that extra ordinary inherent powers conferred under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C is to be exercised for deserving cases and even if such cases are not compoundable, if disputations lie within the arena of civil, commercial disputes, etc., then such discretion could be exercised. But that, for grave and heinous crimes, the extra ordinary power conferred under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C is not to be invoked etc. 7. Further it has been held by the Apex Court and various High Courts including this Court that offence under Sec.376 IPC (rape) may not be amenable for quashment on the ground of settlement between the petitioner-accused and the lady defacto complainant as the offence of rape is not merely one committed against the lady victim but as against the community at large as it is an offence directed against womanhood. {see _**Shimbhu & Anr. v. State of Haryana**_ [2014 (13) SCC 318], _**Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat**_ [ _(_ 2017) 9 SCC 641], _**Anita Maria Dias v. State of Maharashtra**_ [(2018) 3 SCC 290], _**Sebastian @ Solly v.**_ ::6:: **Crl.MC.No. 1360 of 2018** _**State of Kerala**_ [2015 (1) KLJ 384, etc.}. However, this Court has held in various decisions including the one as in _**Freddy @ Antony Francis & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr.**_ [2017 KHC 344 = 2018 (1) KLD 558), etc., that in cases where the accused has subsequently married the defacto complainant in the case of offence under Sec.376 of the I.P.C and if the lady-victim has settled all the disputes with the accused and has urged that she is living in harmonious marital relationship with the accused and that for the predominant purpose of the welfare of the defacto complainant/victim, to ensure her better future marital life, it is only just and proper that this Court in exercise of the extra ordinary inherent powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. could consider such exceptional cases for quashment provided the plea is bona fide and genuine. However, in the facts of this case the parties have no case that the petitioner-accused has married the lady- victim, who has raised the allegation of commission of offence under Sec.376 (rape) of the IPC by the accused. Hence it will not be right and proper for this court to consider the plea for quashment of the present impugned criminal proceedings which involve grave and heinous offence under Sec.376 of the IPC for ::7:: ## **Crl.MC.No. 1360 of 2018** quashment on the ground of settlement between the accused and the victim. However, it is made clear that the observations and findings made by this Court hearinabove are only from the limited compass as to whether the plea for quashment on the ground of settlement is to be allowed, in the facts and circumstances of this case. It is made clear that the above said findings and observations made by this Court will not in any manner fetter or prejudice any of the contentions advanced by the petitioner in appropriate proceedings at the time of trial or in any other appropriate proceedings involving the present crime. With these observations and directions, the above Criminal Miscellaneous Case Stands dismissed. **Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.** bkn/- ::8:: **Crl.MC.No. 1360 of 2018** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR & COMPLAINT NO.1450/2015 OF MARADU POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE-A2. CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMMITED IN CRIME NO.1709/2015 OF SOORANADU POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE-A3. THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT REGARDING SETTLEMENT DATED 31/1/2018.**