Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeCriminal M.C. dismissed; discharge application ...

T. V. Radhakrishnan v. State of Kerala & The Station House Officer, Thirunelli Police Station, Wayanad District

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C.No. 4391 of 2014 (F)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • V.K. Mohanan
Judgment Date
2014-08-14
Court Decision / Holding
The Criminal M.C. is dismissed. The court directs that if the petitioner moves an application for discharge, it shall be considered on merit and pass appropriate orders without delay. The petitioner is obliged to cooperate with the trial of the case.
Final Disposition
Criminal M.C. dismissed; discharge application to be decided on merit

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • T. V. Radhakrishnan

Respondents

  • State of Kerala
  • The Station House Officer, Thirunelli Police Station, Wayanad District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri. K. Ramakumar, Senior Advocate
  • • Adv. Sri. S. M. Prasanth
  • • Sri. M. Manojkumar (Chelakkadan)
  • • Smt. Asha Babu
  • • Smt. Ammu Charles

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Public Prosecutor Sri. Dhanesh Mathew Manjooran

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, T. V. Radhakrishnan, is the sole accused in S.C. No. 24 of 2012 before the Sessions Court, Kalpetta, arising from Crime No. 141 of 2011 of Thirunelli Police Station, Wayanad. The FIR, based on a statement of the victim (Annexure A), alleged that the victim, belonging to the Adiya community and a member of a Scheduled Tribe, worked as a maid in the petitioner's house. The petitioner, who belongs to a higher caste, is alleged to have subjected the victim to sexual intercourse after promising marriage, attracting offences under Section 376 IPC, with initial reference to Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which was later deleted. The petitioner moved this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash further proceedings in SC No. 24 of 2012. The arguments centered on whether the FI statement suffices to establish the ingredients of rape, the delay in lodging the FI statement, and potential prejudice to the de facto complainant on cross-examination. The State contended that the circumstances, caste dynamics, and the alleged offences require trial through evidence, with delays to be weighed by the trial court. While the petitioner relied on Vinod Kumar v. State of Kerala to argue delay warrants quashing, the High Court did not accept that contention, and declined to quash. The court directed that if a discharge application is filed, it shall be considered on merit without delay. The petition was ultimately dismissed, with a direction to the trial court to proceed promptly on discharge applications if raised.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of Cr.P.C.Section 376 IPCSection 379 IPCSection 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicant contends that even if the FI statement is assumed true, the ingredients of Section 376 IPC are not attracted and thus there is no possibility of fruitful prosecution. Relying on Vinod Kumar v. State of Kerala (2014) 5 SCC 678, he argues that inordinate delay in lodging the FI statement would vitiate the proceedings, justifying quashing. He also submits that cross-examination of the de facto complainant could prejudice her, hence the proceedings should be quashed.

Contentions of Respondents

The State asserts that the victim, a Scheduled Tribe woman, was subjected to sexual intercourse; the circumstances and delay must be evaluated by the trial court based on evidence to be adduced. The prosecution contends that the matter should proceed to trial despite delay, with the trial court assessing credibility and delay in light of the total circumstances.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Vinod Kumar v. State of Kerala[(2014)5 SCC 678]DistinguishedThe HC cites this decision to imply that delay in lodging the FI can bar prosecution, but the court ultimately does not adopt that reasoning for quashing in the present case, distinguishing its applicability on the 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 T. V. Radhakrishnan v. State of Kerala & The Station House Officer, Thirunelli Police Station, Wayanad District 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 V.K.MOHANAN** **THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/23RD SRAVANA, 1936** **Crl.MC.No. 4391 of 2014 (F)** **--------------------------------------[S.C.NO. 24/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SESSIONS COURT, KALPETTA, CRIME NO. 141/2011 OF THIRUNELLY POLICE STATION , WAYANAD]** **......** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **----------------------------------** **T.V.RADHAKRISHNAN, "AYODHYA", KALLUMOTTANKUNNU ROAD, P.O.MANANTHAVADY, NORTH WAYANAD, WAYANAD DISTRICT - 670 645.** **BY SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV.SRI.S.M.PRASANTH, SRI.M.MANOJKUMAR (CHELAKKADAN), SMT.ASHA BABU, SMT.AMMU CHARLES.** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:** **-----------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682 031.** **2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THIRUNELLI POLICE STATION, WAYANAD DISTRICT-670 646.** ## **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Prv.** ## **CRL.M.C. NO.4391/2014 - F:** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT MADE BY MEERA BEFORE THE THIRUNELLY POLICE.** **ANNEXURE B: TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE A DOCUMENT. ANNEXURE C: TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT NO.141 OF 2011 DTD. 14.6.2011. ANNEXURE D: TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE C DOCUMENT. ANNEXURE E: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.7.2011 IN CRL.M.C. NO.2032 OF 2011. ANNEXURE F: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 15.12.2011.** ## **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **Prv.** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No. 4391 of 2014** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 14[th] day of August, 2014 ## **O R D E R** The petitioner is the sole accused in S.C.No.24 of 2012 on the file of the Sessions Court, Kalpetta, which is a case instituted upon the report in Crime No.141 of 2011 of the Thirunelli Police Station, Wayanad preferred the above petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash all further proceedings in S.C.No.24/2012 pending in the Sessions Court, Kalpetta pursuant to the registration of the crime. 2. The prosecution allegation is that about 30 years back, the victim, who is belonging to the Adiya community coming under the scheduled tribe, who was working as a maid servant in the house of the petitioner, who belongs to higher caste, after having promised the victim that he will marry her, subjected her to sexual intercourse and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. Crl.M.C. No. 4391 of 2014 :-2-: 3. The Police, on the basis of Annexure A statement of the victim, registered Annexure-C F.I.R. in Crime No.141 of 2011 of Thirunelli Police Station, Wayanad for the offences punishable under Section 379 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and undertaken the investigation and finally laid Annexure F charge. At the time of filing Annexure F charge, the section of offence alleged against the petitioner is only Section 376 of I.P.C. and Section 3 (1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is deleted. Upon Annexure F report, the court below had taken cognizance during the year 2012 and instituted SC No.24 of 2012 which is now pending in the Sessions Court, Kalpetta. It is at this stage, the petitioner approached this Court, by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with the aforesaid prayer. 4. I have heard Sri.K.Ramakumar, learned Senior Counsel Crl.M.C. No. 4391 of 2014 **==> picture [21 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 5. The learned Senior Counsel, after having invited my attention to Annexure A FI statement of the de facto complainant, submitted that even if the statement is accepted as true, the ingredients of Section 376 of I.P.C. are not attracted and therefore, there is no possibility of any fruitful prosecution. It is also submitted by the learned Senior counsel, on the strength of the decision reported in **Vinod Kumar** v. **State of Kerala** [(2014)5 SCC 678], that the inordinate delay in lodging the FI Statement will go against the prosecution and on that ground also, the proceedings pending against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. It is also submitted that if the trial is proceeded, the de facto complainant has to be subjected to cross examination, which will also adversely affect the interest of the de facto complainant. Therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel, this petition has to be allowed granting the prayer as sought Crl.M.C. No. 4391 of 2014 :-4-: for. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor, resisting the relief sought for in the above petition, submitted that the lady, who belongs to Scheduled Tribe community, was subjected to sexual intercourse and the circumstances, under which the alleged offence occurred and the situation under which the delay occurred in setting the machinery in motion, have to be examined by the trial court on the basis of evidence yet to be adduced. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and as this Court is not inclined to sustain the contentions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel in support of the plea to quash proceedings pending against the petitioner, the learned counsel submitted that if this Court is not inclined to interfere with the proceedings, the learned Judge of the trial court may be directed to consider the discharge application, which would be moved Crl.M.C. No. 4391 of 2014 **==> picture [21 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** by the petitioner at appropriate time. The above submission is recorded. In the result, this Criminal M.C. is dismissed and there will be a direction to the trial court that in case the petitioner moves an application for discharge, the same shall be considered on merit and pass appropriate orders without delay. The petitioner is directed to co- operate with the trial of the case. Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. stands dismissed. **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** MBS/ Crl.M.C. No. 4391 of 2014 :-6-: