Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 842 (KER)

Usman, S/o. Abdul Azeez v. State Of Kerala

2020-10-08

ALEXANDER THOMAS

body2020
ORDER : The prayer in the aforecaptioned Criminal Miscellaneous case filed under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C is as follows : “.................... to quash Annexure B final report and further proceedings in S.C.No.43/2016 on the file of Additional Sessions Court-I, Manjeri in the interests of justice.” 2. Heard Sri.S.Mohammed Al Rafi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners (A1 & A2), Smt.M.N.Maya, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State of Kerala and Sri.Ajith Krishnan, learned Advocate appearing for the contesting respondent No.2 (victim). 3. The petitioners herein have been arrayed as accused Nos.1 & 2 among the two accused in the impugned Annexure-A First Information Report in Crime No.1694/2015 of Malappuram Police Station, for offences punishable under Sec.377 of the Indian Penal Code, Sec.25 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act and Sec.5(1) & Sec.6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. 4. The case of the prosecution is that the 2nd respondent-victim boy had not completed the majority age of 18 years as on the alleged date of commission of the abovesaid offences, as his date of birth is 17.05.1998 and that the alleged incidents have happened about one year prior to the date of registration of Annexure-A FIR on 11.10.2015. The police after investigation has filed the impugned Annexure-B final report/charge sheet in the said crime No.1694/2015 of Malappuram Police Station, which has now led to the pendency of sessions case S.C.No.43/2016 on the file of the 1st Additional Sessions Court notified to deal with POCSO cases, Manjeri. The main ground urged by the petitioners is that now the entire issues between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent victim have been duly settled and resolved through mediation process and that the 2nd respondent has filed Annexure-C notarized affidavit dated 11.02.2020 stating that the issues are resolved and that he is not interested to continue the impugned criminal prosecution steps any longer and that the allegations in the abovesaid First Information Statement in the final report has been made on the basis of misunderstandings and that the continuance of further prosecution proceedings will detrimentally affect his future and that he has no objection to quash the impugned criminal proceedings, etc. 5. 5. It is by now well established by series of rulings of the Apex Court and various High Courts that it may not be right and proper for this Court to quash a serious and grave offence as per Sec.376 of the IPC (rape) solely on the ground of settlement between the parties [see Shimbhu 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. State of Kerala 2015 (1) KLJ 384 , etc.]. Going by the gravity of the allegations is also basis for the disclosure of offences as per Sec.377 of the IPC and Secs.5(l) & 6 of the POCSO Act, etc., this Court is of the view that the dictum laid down regarding the principles for quashment of offences as per Sec.377 of the IPC should be more or less equally be made applicable for offences as in Sec.377 of the IPC and Secs.5(l) & 6 of the POCSO Act, which deals with penetrative sexual assault. Hence, this Court is not in a position to concede to the plea of the petitioners for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings, solely on the ground of settlement between the parties. Needless to say, the petitioners will have their liberty to raise all their contentions before the trial court at the time of trial. The learned counsel for the petitioner would then point out as an alternative plea that this Court may direct the Session’s Court to expedite the trial process. Accordingly, it is ordered that the 1st Additional Sessions Court (notified to deal with POCSO cases), Manjeri, will ensure that all reasonable endeavours are taken to ensure that the trial in relation to the instant sessions case S.C.No.43/2016 (arising out of Crime No.1694/2015 of Malappuram Police Station) is taken up for consideration and is concluded without much delay, preferably within a period of eight months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The Registry will forward a certified copy of this order to the abovesaid Sessions Court concerned, for necessary information and further action. With these observations and directions, the above Crl.M.C will stand dismissed.