Vedha Dharan @ Hemanth v. State of Kerala and Krishna Preetha

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/19TH MAGHA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 529 of 2017 () --------------------------** **CP 27/2016 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-XI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. CRIME NO.1003/2016 OF VANCHIYOOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **..........** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** ## **-------------------** **VEDHA DHARAN @ HEMANTH, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.BALACHANDRAN, SHIVASADANAM HOUSE, CHENGANNUR.P.O, ALAPPUZHA DIST., PIN-689121.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.P.VINODKUMAR** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT:** **------------------------------------------** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **2. KRISHNA PREETHA, D/O KRISHNAN, AGED 28 YEARS, KRISHNA BHAVAN, MATHRUBHOMI ROAD, VANCHIYOOR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST., PIN-695035.** - **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.E.C.BINEESH R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **mbr/** ## **Crl.MC.No. 529 of 2017 () --------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE A1 : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.P.27/2016 PENDING BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-XI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **ANNEXURE A2 : TRUE COPY OF MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE. ANNEXURE A3 : AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **mbr/** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J** **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.529 of 2017** **----------------------------------------Dated this the 8[th] day of February, 2017** ## **O R D E R** - 1.This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. - 2.The petitioner herein is the sole accused in C.P. No.27 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-XI, Thiruvananthapuram. In the aforesaid case, he faces indictment under sections 376 and 313 of the IPC. The 2[nd] respondent is the de facto complainant. - 3.The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner was in love with the 2[nd] respondent and during this period he induced her to have sexual intercourse with him by assuring that he would marry her. The 2[nd] respondent became pregnant as a result and the petitioner is Crl.M.C. 529/2017 2 alleged to have persuaded her to undergo abortion. Later he withdrew from his assurance and refused to marry her . Aggrieved by the above, a statement was furnished by the 2[nd] respondent based on which Crime No.1003 of 2016 of Vanchiyoor Police Station was registered as aforesaid. 4.The learned Counsel appearing for the parties submits that the allegations are false. It is submitted that the father of the 2[nd] respondent was a Police Officer and her sister was a lawyer . They were initially against the relationship between the petitioner and the 2[nd] respondent . It was in an attempt to dissuade the 2[nd] respondent that the information was furnished and the crime was registered. Later on realizing the depth of relationship between the parties, they agreed to given her hand in marriage to the petitioner. It is further Crl.M.C. 529/2017 3 urged that the crime was registered due to the circumstances which prevailed then and under the apprehension that the petitioner would withdraw from his marriage. - 5.The 2[nd] respondent has entered appearance through counsel. Annexure-A3 is the affidavit sworn to by the 2[nd] respondent wherein she has stated that she has no further grievance as against the petitioner. - 6.The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submits that the statement of the 2[nd] respondent has been recorded and she has in unequivocal terms stated that they are living together as husband and wife. 7.I have considered the submissions and have gone through Annexure-A2 marriage certificate issued under rule 11(1) of the Kerala Registration of Marriage (Common) Rules, 2008. It appears from Annexure-A2 Crl.M.C. 529/2017 4 that the marriage between the petitioner and the 2[nd] respondent was solemnised on 5.12.2016 at Ulloor Sree Elankavil Bhagavathy Temple, Thiruvananthapuram. The only question is whether, on facts, the proceedings are liable to be quashed on the basis of the subsequent events. 8.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 complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal Court for compounding the offences under S.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 Crl.M.C. 529/2017 5 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 Punjab** [ (2014) 6 SCC 466 ] serve as guiding lights. - 9.In so far as the offence of rape is concerned, there cannot be any doubt that the same cannot be settled Crl.M.C. 529/2017 6 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 Crl.M.C. 529/2017 7 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. In **Madan Lal** (supra) the Apex Court was hearing an appeal filed by the State against the Judgement of the High Court by which the conviction arrived at by the Trial Court was set aside on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the victim and the accused. 10.However, the facts of the instant case are entirely different. It appears that the Crime was registered when the 2[nd] respondent entertained an apprehension that the petitioner would withdraw from his promise to marry her. 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 Crl.M.C. 529/2017 8 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 respondent No. 2 has asserted that she is not desirous of prosecuting her husband any further, the prospects of an ultimate conviction is remote and bleak. Further more, the 2[nd] respondent can continue with her life with dignity and respect. 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 extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. Crl.M.C. 529/2017 9 In the result this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A1 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner now pending as C.P. No.27 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-XI, Thiruvananthapuram are quashed. **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** vps