KISHOR @ KICHU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the sole accused in Sessions Case S.C.No.1810/2017 on the file of Additional Sessions (POCSO) Court, Thiruvananthapuram which arose out of Crime No.663/2017 of Vellarada Police Station alleging commission of offences punishable under Secs.363, 342, 376 IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The brief of the prosecution case is that the petitioner who is now aged 26 years is the cousin of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, who was then, aged 17 1/2 years at the time of the incident. It appears that they were in love for a period of one year and while so on a day in October, 2016, the petitioner had taken away the 2nd respondent, who was then a minor girl aged 17 1/2 years in a car to his house and had sexual intercourse with her in his bedroom. Later, on 09.04.2017 at 10 a.m., she was again taken in a car to Amboori and he had sexual intercourse with her inside of the back seat of the car. Later, based on a complaint of the 2nd respondent, the Crime No.663/2017 of Vellarada Police Station was registered against the petitioner for the abovesaid offences. It is stated that with the blessings of the parents on both sides, the marriage between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent has been solemnized on 08.10.2017 at Sree Mahadevar Temple, Amboori, in accordance with the Hindu rites and custom and that the entire disputes between the parties had been amicably settled. The Annexure-C is the Marriage Certificate dated 08.10.2017 issued by the Amboori Mahadevar Temple Authorities regarding the facts of the marriage between the parties. Annexure-D is the notarized affidavit sworn to by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant evidencing the facts regarding the settlement of disputes between the parties.

(2.) It is in the light of these aspects, the petitioner has filed the instant Crl.M.C with the prayer to quash the impugned Annexure-A final report in Crime No.663/2017 of Vellarada Police Station, which has led to the institution of S.C.No.1810/2017 on the file of Additional Sessions (POCSO) Court, Thiruvananthapuram and all further proceedings in pursuance thereof, in view of the fact that the marriage between the petitioner/accused and the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant has already been solemnized and the parties have settled their disputes.

(3.) Heard Sri.S.Mohammed Al Rafi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused, Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for R-1 State and Sri.Ajith Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for R-2 de facto complainant. It is by now, too well settled that serious and grave offences including the one as per Sec.376 of the IPC may not be amenable for quashment on the ground of settlement between the parties. See Paragraph 20 of the judgment in the case in Shimbu 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] and Sebastian @ Solly v. State of Kerala and anr. [2015 (1) KLJ 384]. However, it had also held by this Court in various decisions as in Freddy @ Antony Francis and anr. v. State of Kerala and anr. [2017 KHC 344 = 2018 (1) KLD 558], that in the exceptional cases where the accused in a case involving offence under Sec.376 of the IPC, subsequently marries the victim and files an appropriate petition to quash the impugned proceedings on the basis of settlement between the accused and the de facto complainant in view of the solemnization of the marriage between the parties, etc., then this Court could exercise discretionary inherent powers conferred under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashment of such impugned criminal proceedings, keeping in view the interest and welfare of the victim, who has later become the wife of the accused. Sri.Ajith Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for R-2 would submit on the basis of instructions of his party that the 2 nd respondent has voluntarily entered into the marriage relationship with the petitioner and that they have decided to live a new life and have decided to settle all their disputes and Annexure-D is the notarized affidavit sworn to by the 2nd respondent in that regard. In the light of the abovesaid factual aspects, this Court is inclined to consider the said plea.