SUNILKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the sole accused in S.C.No.838/2019 on the file of Fast Track Special Court, Haripad for the offences punishable u/s.451, 354 and 354(D) of IPC and Sec. 7 r/w. Sec. 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sec. 3(1)(w)(i) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 initiated at the instance of the second respondent, a minor girl. This petition has been filed seeking to quash the entire proceedings in S.C.No.838/2019.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 15/8/2017 the accused who is not a member of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe with the intention and preparation to commit sexual assault upon the minor defacto complainant, called her to his house No.VI/364 in Krishnapuram Village at about 3 p.m. Thereafter he hugged her with sexual intention and kissed and hold at her chest. Subsequently on 10/9/2017 accused trespassed into the kitchen of house No.VI/220 of Krishnapuram panchayat where the defacto complainant and family are residing and intimidated her and threatened her to publish her photos captured in the mobile phone. It is further alleged that on 13/10/2017 at about 10 p.m while the defacto complainant entered into the bathroom accused peeped through the ventilator and thereby committed the above offences aforementioned.

(3.) According to the petitioner, the family of the defacto complainant had been a nuisance to the family of the petitioner ever since they started residing nearby their house. In connection with the dumping of septic tank waste there was an issue two years ago in between them. When there was an attempt by the father of the defacto complainant to reclaim the paddy land, village officer issued stop memo which was accused on the petitioner and family. The family of the defacto complainant and the petitioner's family are not in a good terms for so many years. On 13/10/2017 the father of the defacto complainant abused the petitioner and family and there was some exchange of words and on seeing this his wife, mother and the only son of the petitioner came and his family members went to the police station and reported the incident and police registered two crimes; one against the father of the 2nd respondent and the other against the petitioner and the defacto complainant's father was arrested and after custody for two days this case was falsely foisted against him. According to him, there is no incident as alleged occurred and this is a totally falsely foisted case.