Print Previous Hint Next Hint Print Print
This product is Licensed to :

2021 5 KHC 284 ; 2021 2 KLD 381 ; 2021 5 KLT 410 ; 2021 0 Supreme(Ker) 629
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Shircy V., J.
Rahul P.R. and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Kerala Represented By Public Prosecutor And Ors. – Respondents
CRL. MC No. 5890 of 2020
Decided On : 26-08-2021

Point of Law : Rape - Amicable settlement - Quash of FIR - Inherit powers of High Court - Power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc - Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society - Hence not to be quashed merely on basis of compromise between victim and offender.

Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 366A, 376 and 34 - Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 - Section 482 16 and 17- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2002, - 3, 4, 5, and 6 - Whether on that ground criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed to secure ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of court etc, have to be analysed on basis of guiding principles laid down by Honourable - whether FIR registered for an offence of rape alleged to have been committed by 1st petitioner after procuring a minor girl from her lawful custody with 2nd petitioner, could be quashed and whether consequent criminal proceedings initiated thereto, also could be be quashed in view of compromise arrived at between parties exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Finding of the court : Power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that dispute has been settled, High Court must have due regard to nature and gravity of offence - HEINOUS and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though victim or family of victim have settled dispute - Victim has attained age of majority and is living happily with 1st petitioner are not valid grounds or justifiable reasons or decisive factors for consideration to quash criminal proceedings as sought for. - Therefore, compromise and settlement entered between parties are not accepted to hold that allegations do not make out a case against petitioners - Hence, it is made clear that petitioners have to stand test of judicial scrutiny and thus face trial before trial court.

Result : CRL.MC Dismissed.

Catch Words :

Cases Referred:
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303) - Referred By
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 - Referred By
Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641 - Referred By

Advocate Appeared :
For the Petitioner : C.A. Chacko, Smt. C.M. Charisma, Shri. Alekh Thomas, Advs.
For the Respondent : Ajith Murali, P.P

Rahul P. R. VS State of Kerala Represented By Public Prosecutor

ORDER :

The petitioners, who are the accused in Crime No. 734 of 2017 of Kodungallur Police Station, Thrissur District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 366A, 376 and 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 read with Section 3, Section 6 read with Section 5 and Section 17 read with Section 16 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2002, have filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the FIR, the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer and its further proceedings now pending as S.C. No. 836 of 2020 before the 1st Additional District and Sessions Court, Thrissur.

2. Briefly stated the facts as emerge from the records are that on 23.03.2017 at 12.30 p.m. the petitioners/accused have procured the victim, who is aged only 17 years, from her lawful custody and took her forcibly to the rental house of the 2nd accused and the 1st accused committed rape on her. The 2nd accused, who is a child in conflict with law also abetted the 1st accused to commit rape on her after procuring her with the 1st accused and thereby they have committed the aforesaid offences.

3. The learned counsel has contended that they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and now the entire matter has been settled between the parties and the victim does not intend to proceed with the case against the petitioners. An affidavit has also been sworn to by her, stating that the 1st petitioner has

Click Here to Read the rest of this document with a free account to LawCanvas