High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2017-01-11Petition allowed; criminal proceedings quashed.

Sunil Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C.No. 8506 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2017-01-11
Court Decision / Holding: The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The final report in Crime No.1616/2014 and all proceedings in S.C.No.463 of 2015 against the petitioner are quashed, thereby terminating the criminal proceedings against Sunil Kumar.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; criminal proceedings quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sunil Kumar

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by the Sub Inspector of Police Attingal Police Station through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Anitha Abraham
Anoopa Abraham

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Shajin S. Hameed

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor SMT. M.K. Pusphalatha
• Sri. R. Gopan (for R2 & R3)

Case Synopsis & Summary

Sunil Kumar, the sole accused in S.C. No. 463 of 2015 before the Additional Sessions Court (for the trial of cases relating to Atrocities and Sexual Violence against Women and Children), Thiruvananthapuram, seeks to quash the criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The offences alleged are under Section 8 and 11(iv) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, arising from an incident on 20.10.2014 in which the 3rd respondent — daughter of the 2nd respondent — was allegedly subjected to a sexual act while traveling as a fellow passenger in a KSRTC bus. The 3rd respondent had attained majority during the pendency of the proceedings and filed an affidavit stating that she has no grievance against the petitioner; the 2nd respondent, her mother, likewise filed an affidavit asserting no objection to terminating the proceedings. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about invoking 482 on the basis of settlement, but acknowledged the petitioner’s lack of criminal antecedents. The court references Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, noting that High Courts may quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases where settlement between victim and wrongdoer serves ends of justice and avoids abuse of process. The court ultimately holds that the offence is not grave, the settlement fosters peace, and continuing prosecution would be a waste of resources, allowing the petition and quashing the final report and proceedings against the petitioner.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal ProcedureSection 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012Section 11(iv) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice
Abuse of process of law
Amicable settlement between victim and wrongdoer as basis for quashing

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that there was no sexual intent or act by him, and the alleged incident, occurring in a KSRTC bus, does not constitute the offence under POCSO. With the case having been amicably resolved and the 3rd respondent attaining majority, she has filed an affidavit expressing no grievance, and the 2nd respondent has also supplied an affidavit stating no objection to quashing. The petitioner argues that quashing under 482 CrPC is warranted to secure ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process given the lack of grave offence and absence of ongoing public interest, especially since there are no criminal antecedents.

Contentions of Respondents

The State, through the Public Prosecutor, submits reservations about exercising inherent powers to quash a case under POCSO on the basis of settlement; however, it acknowledges the lack of antecedents and the affidavits indicating no grievance. The defense contends that continuing prosecution would be a misuse of resources given the peaceful settlement and lack of malice, while recognizing the seriousness of sexual offences and the need to protect the victim.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	(2012) 10 SCC 303	Positive	Apex Court held that High Courts can quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases where a settlement between the victim and the wrongdoer serves ends of justice; not resulting in injustice to the party.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	(2014) 6 SCC 466	Positive	Apex Court reiterated that the guiding factors are ends of justice and avoidance of abuse of process; supports quashing on settlement where appropriate.

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 Sunil Kumar v. State of Kerala 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** **WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/21ST POUSHA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 8506 of 2016** **--------------------------------------** ## **S.C.NO. 463/2015 OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, (FOR THE TRIAL OF CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** **------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :** **-----------------------------------------** **SUNIL KUMAR, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. THANKKAPPAN, SHARADALAYAM, NANNATTUKADAVU, POTHENCODE, VEMBAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE, CW1 & CW2 :** **---------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ATTINGAL POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **2. ANITHA ABRAHAM, AGED 46 YEARS, D/O. MOLI, ANIL HOUSE, MULAMOODU, THOPPIL ROAD, MURUKKUMPUZHA DESOM, VEILOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.** **3. ANOOPA ABRAHAM, AGED 19 YEARS, D/O. ANITHA, ANIL HOUSE, MULAMOODU, THOPPIL ROAD, MURUKKUMPUZHA DESOM, VEILOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K.PUSHPALATHA R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.R.GOPAN** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Msd. **Crl.MC.No. 8506 of 2016** **------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :** **ANNEXURE-A: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.1616/2014 OF ATTINGAL POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE-B: AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/CW1. ANNEXURE-C: AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT/CW2. RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :** ## **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A.TO JUDGE** Msd. ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## Crl.M.C. No. 8506 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 11[th] January, 2017 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **ORDER** - 1.This petition is filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' ) with a prayer to invoke the extraordinary inherent powers and to quash the pending criminal proceedings. - 2.The petitioner herein is the sole accused in S.C.No. 463 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (for the trial of cases relating to Atrocities and Sexual Violence against Women and Children), Thiruvananthapuram. In the aforesaid case he faces indictment under Section 8 and 11(iv) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. - 3.The allegations centers around an incident which took place on 20.10.2014 at about 4.40 pm. The 3[rd] respondent who is the daughter of the 2[nd] respondent was Crl.M.C. No.8506 of 2016 -2- travelling in a K.S.R.T.C bus in which the accused was a fellow traveler. The prosecution allegation is that the accused committed sexual assault by touching the body of the 3[rd] respondent. 4.Heard the submissions advanced. 5.The learned counsel submits that the petitioner had not committed any act with sexual intent and in that view of the matter, the offence is not attracted. It is submitted that during the pendency of the proceedings the matter was talked over between the petitioner as well as respondents 2 and 3 and the same has been amicably resolved. The 3[rd] respondent in the meanwhile has attained majority and she has filed an affidavit stating that she has no grievance as against the petitioner herein. The 2[nd] respondent, who is the mother of the 3[rd] respondent, has also filed an affidavit wherein she asserts that she has no objection in terminating the criminal proceedings. Crl.M.C. No.8506 of 2016 -3- - 6.The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions has expressed his reservations in the matter of quashing the proceedings on the basis of settlement. It is submitted that the invocation of powers under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is not warranted. However, it is submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and the statement of respondents 2 and 3 has also been recorded. - 7.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 the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. It was observed as follows : Crl.M.C. No.8506 of 2016 -4- _“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.”_ 8.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_ _(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_ Crl.M.C. No.8506 of 2016 -5- ## _xxxxxxx_ 9.The offence committed by the petitioner cannot be said to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. It also does not appear that the offence in this case will have a serious impact on the society. It is felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and secure the ends of justice. Even otherwise, persisting with the prosecution would be nothing but a waste of time as the prospects of conviction would be bleak. 10.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-A final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner now pending as S.C.No. 463 of 2015 on the file of Crl.M.C. No.8506 of 2016 -6- the Additional Sessions Court (for the trial of cases relating to Atrocities and Sexual Violence against Women and Children), Thiruvananthapuram are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** kp/11.1.17