SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Denu P Thampi vs Ms.X on 27 May, 2019

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFKERALAATERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICER.NARAYANAPISHARADI

MONDAY,THE27THDAYOFMAY2019/6THJYAISHTA,1941

Crl.MC.No.8778of2017

AGAINSTTHEORDER/JUDGMENTINCP13/2017ofJUDICIALMAGISTRATEOF
FIRSTCLASS-I,PATHANAMTHITTA

CRIMENO.2211/2014OFPathanamthittaPoliceStation,
Pathanamthitta

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

DENUPTHAMPI
AGED26YEARS,S/O.THAMPI,THEKKEKKARAPUTHEN
VEEDU,CHEMPATTAP.O,MEENKULAMVILLAGE,ANCHAL,
KOLLAMDISTRICT-691306.

BYADV.SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR

RESPONDENT/DEFACTOCOMPLAINANTANDSTATE:

1Ms.X
AGED23YEARS,D/O.SUSAN,KAKKUNNATHFLAT,NEARCSI
CHURCH,ELANTHOOR,ELANTHOORVILLAGE,KOZHENCHERRY
TALUK,PATHANAMTHITTADISTRICT689643.

2STATEOFKERALA
REPRESENTEDBYPUBLICPROSECUTOR,HIGHCOURTOF
KERALA,ERNAKULAM,PIN682031.

BYADVS.
SRI.JOSEANTONY
SRI.GIREESHNEYYAR
SRI.RAYJITHMARK
SRI.SASTHAMANGALAMS.AJITHKUMAR
SRI.V.S.THOSHIN
PUBLICPROSECUTORSMT.K.K.SHEEBA

THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGBEENFINALLYHEARDON08.04.2019,
THECOURTON27.05.2019PASSEDTHEFOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.8778/2017
2

“CR”

R.NARAYANAPISHARADI,J
************************
Crl.M.C.No.8778of2017
—————————————————–
Datedthisthe27thdayofMay,2019

ORDER

ThepetitioneristheaccusedinthecaseC.P.No.13of

2017onthefileoftheCourtoftheJudicialFirstClass

Magistrate-1,Pathanamthitta.Heisaccusedofcommittingan

offencepunishableunderSection376oftheIndianPenalCode.

2.ThecaseagainstthepetitionerwasregisteredasCrime

No.2211of2014ofthePathanamthittapolicestationonthe

basisofthefirstinformationstatementgiventothepoliceby

thevictimlady,thefirstrespondentherein.Aftercompleting

theinvestigationofthecase,Annexure-3finalreportwasfiled

againstthepetitionerallegingthathehadcommittedrapeon

thefirstrespondent.Onthebasisofthefinalreport,committal

proceedingswereinitiatedagainstthepetitionerandthecaseis

pendingasC.P.No.13of2017onthefileoftheCourtofthe

JudicialFirstClassMagistrate-1,Pathanamthitta.Thepetitioner

seekstoquashtheproceedingsagainsthimbyinvokingthe
Crl.M.C.No.8778/2017
3

powerofthisCourtunderSection482oftheCodeofCriminal

Procedure,1973(hereinafterreferredtoas’theCode’).

3.Thematerialavermentsinthefirstinformation

statementgiventothepolicebythefirstrespondentareas

follows:Thefirstrespondenthadgotacquaintedwiththe

petitionerthrough”facebook”.Shewasinlovewiththe

petitioner.Hehadpromisedherthathewouldmarryher.On

14.12.2014,shereachedCoimbatoreattherequestofthe

petitioner.TheywenttogethertoOottyandtookaroomina

lodgethereandstayedtheretill17.12.2014.Duringthis

period,thepetitionerhadsexualintercoursewithherseveral

timesagainstherwill.On17.12.2014,theyreturnedto

Coimbatoreandresidedthere.On18.12.2014,theyreached

Kollamandthepetitionertookhertothehouseofhisrelative.

On19.12.2014,therelativesofthepetitionercamethereand

threatenedher.Apprehendingthattheywouldcauseharmto

her,sheescapedfromthereandreachedthehouseofthesister

ofherfatherandresidedthere.Shereportedthemattertothe

policeon20.12.2014.

4.Heardlearnedcounselforthepetitionerandthe

learnedPublicProsecutorandalsothelearnedcounselforthe
Crl.M.C.No.8778/2017
4

firstrespondent.

5.Learnedcounselforthepetitioneraswellasthefirst

respondentsubmittedthatthepetitionerhasmarriedthefirst

respondentandtheyarenowlivingtogetherandleadinga

happymarriedlife.Learnedcounselforthefirstrespondent

submittedthatthefirstrespondenthasgotnogrievance

againstthepetitionerandthereisnoobjectiontoquashthe

proceedingsagainsthim.Thefirstrespondenthasfiledan

affidavittothateffect.Further,thepetitionerandthefirst

respondenthavetogetherfiledanapplicationtocompoundthe

offenceallegedlycommittedbythepetitioner.

6.Annexure-2isthecopyofthemarriagecertificate.It

showsthatthemarriagebetweenthepetitionerandthefirst

respondentwassolemnizedon30.01.2015undertheSectionSpecial

MarriageAct,1954.

7.Thequestionariseswhethertheprosecutionagainstthe

petitionerforcommittinganoffencepunishableunderSection

376I.P.Ccanbequashedonthegroundthatthepartieshave

compromisedandsettledthematterandthatthepetitionerhas

marriedthevictimoftheoffence.

8.SectionInShimbhuv.StateofHaryana:AIR2014SC
Crl.M.C.No.8778/2017
5

739,theApexCourthasheldasfollows:

“Further,acompromiseenteredinto
betweenthepartiescannotbeconstruedas
aleadingfactorbasedonwhichlesser
punishmentcanbeawarded.Rapeisa
non-compoundableoffenceanditisan
offenceagainstthesocietyandisnota
mattertobeleftforthepartiesto
compromiseandsettle.SincetheCourt
cannotalwaysbeassuredthattheconsent
givenbythevictimincompromisingthe
caseisagenuineconsent,thereisevery
chancethatshemighthavebeen
pressurizedbytheconvictsorthetrauma
undergonebyheralltheyearsmighthave
compelledhertooptforacompromise.In
fact,acceptingthispropositionwillputan
additionalburdenonthevictim.The
accusedmayuseallhisinfluenceto
pressurizeherforacompromise.So,inthe
interestofjusticeandtoavoidunnecessary
pressure/harassmenttothevictim,itwould
notbesafeinconsideringthecompromise
arrivedatbetweenthepartiesinrape
casestobeagroundfortheCourtto
exercisethediscretionarypowerunderthe
provisoofSection376(2)ofI.P.C.”

9.InShimbhu(supra),theApexCourthascategorically

heldthatrapeisanon-compoundableoffenceanditisan
Crl.M.C.No.8778/2017
6

offenceagainstthesocietyandisnotamattertobeleftforthe

partiestocompromiseandsettle.However,itistobenoted

thatinShimbhu(supra),whattheApexCourtconsideredwas

thesentencingpolicytobeadoptedbythecourtsincaseof

convictionoftheoffenceofrape.Itwasacaseofgangrapeon

a16yearsoldgirl.TheonlyquestionconsideredbytheApex

Courtinthatcase(asrevealedfromparagraph6ofthe

decision)waswhethertheappellants-accusedinthatcasehad

madeoutacaseforimpositionofalessersentencethanten

years.

10.SectionInStateofM.Pv.Madanlal:AIR2015SC3003,

theHon’bleSupremeCourthasheldasfollows:

“Wewouldliketoclearlystatethatina
caseofrapeorattemptofrape,the
conceptionofcompromiseunderno
circumstancescanreallybethoughtof.

Thesearecrimesagainstthebodyofa
womanwhichisherowntemple.Theseare
offenceswhichsuffocatethebreathoflife
andsullythereputation.Andreputation,
needlesstoemphasise,istherichestjewel
onecanconceiveofinlife.Noonewould
allowittobeextinguished.Whenahuman
frameisdefiled,the”puresttreasure”,is
lost.Dignityofawomanisapartofhernon
Crl.M.C.No.8778/2017
7

-perishableandimmortalselfandnoone
shouldeverthinkofpaintingitinclay.

Therecannotbeacompromiseor
settlementasitwouldbeagainsther
honourwhichmattersthemost.Itis
sacrosanct.Sometimessolaceisgiventhat
theperpetratorofthecrimehasaccededto
enterintowedlockwithherwhichisnothing
butputtingpressureinanadroitmanner;
andwesaywithemphasisthattheCourts
aretoremainabsolutelyawayfromthis
subterfugetoadoptasoftapproachtothe
case,foranykindofliberalapproachhasto
beputinthecompartmentofspectacular
error.Ortoputitdifferently,itwouldbein
therealmofasanctuaryoferror.Weare
compelledtosaysoassuchanattitude
reflectslackofsensibilitytowardsthe
dignity,theelanvital,ofawoman.Anykind
ofliberalapproachorthoughtofmediation
inthisregardisthoroughlyandcompletely
sanslegalpermissibility.”

11.Madanlal(supra)alsoholdsincategoricaltermsthat

compromiseorsettlementbetweentheaccusedandthevictim

inacaseofrapehasnolegalsanctionandunderno

circumstances,conceptionofcompromisecanbethoughtofin

acaseofrape.

12.Rapeisanon-compoundableoffence.Itisanoffence
Crl.M.C.No.8778/2017
8

againstthesociety.Itisnotamatterforthepartiesto

compromiseandsettle.Compromiseorsettlementbetweenthe

accusedandthevictiminacaseofrapehasnolegalsanction

andundernocircumstances,conceptionofcompromisecanbe

thoughtofinacaseofrape.Prosecutionofapersonfor

committinganoffencepunishableunderSection376I.P.C

cannotbequashedonthegroundthattheaccusedandthe

victimhavecompromisedandsettledthematter.

13.Thequestionremainswhetherthemarriagebetween

theaccusedandthevictimcanbeconsideredasasufficient

groundtoquashtheprosecutionproceedingsagainstthe

petitioner.Thecourtcanconsiderwhethertheavermentsin

thefirstinformationreportandothermaterialsdisclose

commissionofanoffenceofrapeoronlyanactofconsensual

sex.Inacasewheretheallegationisthattheaccusedhad

sexualintercoursewithawomanbyobtainingherconsentfor

suchactbymakingapromisetomarryherandwhenhe

subsequentlymarriesher,itdoesnotconstituteacompromise

orsettlementbetweentheaccusedandthevictim.Itreally

meansfulfilmentofthepromisemadebytheaccusedtothe

prosecutrix.Itisafactwhichcanbetakenintoconsiderationby
Crl.M.C.No.8778/2017
9

thecourttoexercisethediscretiontoinvokethepowerunder

Section482oftheCode.

14.Thefirstrespondentisaneducatedlady.Shewas

studyingfordegreecourseatthetimeoftheallegedincident.

Shewasaged20yearsatthattime.Shewasinlovewiththe

petitioner.Thepetitionerhadpromisedherthathewouldmarry

her.ShevoluntarilywenttoCoimbatoreattherequestofthe

petitioner.ShevoluntarilywenttoOotywithhimandresided

withhiminahotelforfourdays.Theavermentinthefirst

informationstatementthat,thepetitionerhadforciblesexual

intercoursewithheragainstherwill,hastobeconsideredin

thelightoftheaforesaidcircumstances.Inthesubsequent

statementgiventothepolice,thefirstrespondenthasstated

thatthepetitionermadehertobelievethathewouldmarryher

andtookhertoOottyandmadesexualintercoursewithher.In

theaffidavitfiledbythefirstrespondent,itisstatedthatshe

wasforcedtosignthefirstinformationstatementatthe

instanceofhermotherandotherrelativesandthatshehadno

intentiontoimplicatethepetitionerinacaseofrape.These

circumstancesleadtoanirresistibleinferencethatthefirst

respondenthadgivenconsentforsexualintercourseonthe
Crl.M.C.No.8778/2017
10

promisemadebythepetitionerthathewouldmarryher.

15.Section90oftheIndianPenalCodestatesthata

consentisnotsuchaconsentasisintendedbyanysectionSectionof

thePenalCode,iftheconsentisgivenbyapersonunderfear

ofinjury,orunderamisconceptionoffact,andiftheperson

doingtheactknows,orhasreasontobelieve,thattheconsent

wasgiveninconsequenceofsuchfearormisconception.

16.Consentisanactofreasoncoupledwithdeliberation.

Itdenotesanactivewillinthemindofapersontopermitthe

doingoftheactcomplainedof.Consentmaybeexpressor

implied,coercedormisguided,obtainedwillinglyorthrough

deceit.Iftheconsentisgivenbythecomplainantunder

misconceptionoffact,itisvitiated.Consentforthepurposeof

Section375I.P.Crequiresvoluntaryparticipationnotonlyafter

theexerciseofintelligencebasedontheknowledgeofthe

significanceandmoralqualityoftheact,butalsoafterhaving

fullyexercisedthechoicebetweenresistanceandassent.

Whethertherewasanyconsentornotistobeascertainedona

carefulstudyofallrelevantcircumstances.Consentgivenby

theprosecutrixtosexualintercoursewithapersonwithwhom

sheisdeeplyinlove,onapromisethathewouldmarryheron
Crl.M.C.No.8778/2017
11

alaterdate,cannotbesaidtobegivenunderamisconception

offact.Thereisnostraitjacketformulafordeterminingwhether

consentgivenbytheprosecutrixtosexualintercourseis

voluntary,orwhetheritisgivenunderamisconceptionoffact.

Thecourtmust,ineachcase,considertheevidencebeforeit

andthesurroundingcircumstances,beforereachinga

conclusion,becauseeachcasehasitsownpeculiarfactswhich

mayhaveabearingonthequestionwhethertheconsentwas

voluntary,orwasgivenunderamisconceptionoffact.

17.Aquestionwouldarisewhethertheaccusedhad

madeafalsepromiseofmarriagewiththefraudulentintention

ofinducingthevictimtosexualintercourse.Thereisaclear

distinctionbetweenrapeandconsensualsex.Thecourt,insuch

cases,mustverycarefullyexaminewhethertheaccusedhad

actuallywantedtomarrythevictimorhadmalafidemotives

andhadmadeafalsepromiseofmarriageonlytosatisfyhis

lust.Iftheaccusedhasnotmadethepromisewiththesole

intentiontoseducetheprosecutrixtoindulgeinsexualacts,

suchanactwouldnotamounttorape.Theremaybeacase

wheretheprosecutrixagreestohavesexualintercourseon

accountofherloveandpassionfortheaccusedandnotsolely
Crl.M.C.No.8778/2017
12

onaccountofthemisconceptioncreatedbyaccused,orwhere

anaccused,onaccountofcircumstanceswhichhecouldnot

haveforeseenorwhichwerebeyondhiscontrol,wasunableto

marryherdespitehavingeveryintentiontodo.Iftheaccused

hadanymalafideintentionandifhehadclandestinemotives,

itisaclearcaseofrape.Ifitisfoundthatfromtheinception

theaccusedwhogavethepromisetotheprosecutrixtomarry

didnothaveanyintentiontomarryandtheprosecutrixgave

theconsentforsexualintercourseonsuchanassurancebythe

accusedthathewouldmarryher,suchaconsentcanbesaidto

beaconsentobtainedonamisconceptionoffactasperSection

90I.P.C.But,acknowledgedconsensualphysicalrelationship

betweenthepartieswouldnotconstituteanoffencepunishable

underSection376oftheIndianPenalCode.

18.Theaforesaidprincipleshavebeenhighlightedbythe

ApexCourtinthedecisionsinSectionUdayv.StateofKarnataka:AIR

2003SC1639,DeelipSinghaliasSectionDilipKumarv.StateofBihar:

AIR2005SC203,SectionDeepakGulativ.StateofHaryana:AIR2013

SC2071,SectionDhruvaramMurlidharSonarv.StateofMaharashtra:

AIR2019SC327andSectionAnuragSoniv.StateofChhattisgarh:

AIR2019SC1857.

Crl.M.C.No.8778/2017
13

19.Intheinstantcase,asnoticedearlier,the

circumstancesofthecasewouldshowthatthefirstrespondent

hadgivenconsentforsexualintercourseonthepromisemade

bythepetitionerthathewouldmarryher.Infact,shehas

givenstatementtothepolicetothateffect.Thepetitionerhad

nofraudulentintentioninmakingthepromisethathewould

marrythefirstrespondent.Thepromisemadebyhimtomarry

theprosecutrixwasnotafalsepromisemadeonlywiththe

intentiontosatisfyhislust.Thisisevidentfromthefactthathe

marriedthevictimladywithinashortperiodaftertheincident.

ItisamarriagesolemnizedundertheSectionSpecialMarriageAct,

1954andnotmerelyaregistrationofmarriageunderSection

15ofthatAct.Insuchcircumstances,ithastobefoundthat

whatoccurredwasonlyacknowledgedconsensualphysical

relationshipbetweentheparties.Inthisfactualscenario,

prosecutionofthepetitionerforcommittinganoffenceofrape

wouldbeanabuseoftheprocessofthecourt.Continuationof

theprosecutionwillcauseembarrassmenttothecoupleandit

wouldcreatediscordsintheirhappymatrimoniallife.Evenif

theprosecutionagainstthepetitioneriscontinued,prospectsof

anultimateconvictionisremoteandbleak.Inthelightofthese
Crl.M.C.No.8778/2017
14

circumstances,Iamoftheconsideredviewthatthisisafit

casewherethepowerofthisCourtunderSection482ofthe

Codecanbeexercisedtoquashtheproceedingsagainstthe

petitioner.

20.Consequently,thepetitionisallowed.Annexure-3final

reportandallproceedingspursuanttheretoagainstthe

petitionerinC.P.No.13of2017onthefileoftheCourtofthe

JudicialFirstClassMagistrate-1,Pathanamthitta,arequashed.

21.Inordertoavoidembarrassmenttothefirst

respondent,itisdirectedthatherrealnameshallnotbe

disclosedinthecausetitleofthisorder,buthernameshallbe

shownas”Ms.X”

(sd/-)

R.NARAYANAPISHARADI,JUDGE
jsr/09/05/2019
Crl.M.C.No.8778/2017
15

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’SEXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE1TRUECOPYOFTHEFIRANDTHEFIRST
INFORMATIONSTATEMENTDATED29-12-2014
INCRIMENO.2211OF2014OF
PATHANAMTHITTAPOLICESTATION.

ANNEXURE2ATRUECOPYOFTHEMARRIAGECERTIFICATE
DATED30-1-2015.

ANNEXURE3TRUECOPYOFTHEFINALREPORTINCRIME
NO.2211OF2014OFPATHANAMTHITTA
POLICEDATED20-12-2014.

RESPONDENTS’EXHIBITS:

NIL

TRUECOPY

PSTOJUDGE

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation