SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rahim Abdul Hameed vs State Of Kerala on 24 October, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 2ND KARTHIKA, 1941

Crl.MC.No.1638 OF 2018

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 709/2016 OF SPECIAL COURT UNDER
POCSO ACT, MANJERI

CRIME NO.203/2016 OF Thenhipalam Police Station , Malappuram

PETITIONER/S:

RAHIM ABDUL HAMEED, S/O.HAMEED,
AGED 42 YEARS, KALLEPPURATH HOUSE,
VALAPPIL, PALLIKKAL P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS

RESPONDENT/S:

1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF
POLICE,THENHIPPALAM POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.

2 VICTIM.
..

3 SUHRABI, W/O.RAHIM ABDUL HAMEED, AGED 34 YEARS,
KALLEPPURATH HOUSE, VALAPPIL, PALLIKKAL P.O,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673 653.

R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.PRINSUN PHILIP

OTHER PRESENT:

SRI.AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
24.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
::2::
Crl.MC.No.1638 OF 2018

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
—————————–
Crl.M.C.No.1638 Of 2018
———————————
Dated this the 24th day of October, 2019.

ORDER

The prayers in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case filed under

the enabling provisions under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure is for quashment of the impugned Anx-II final report in

Crime No.203/2016 of Thenhippalam Police Station, which led to

the institution of S.C.No.709/2016 on the file of Additional

Sessions Court-I, Manjeri, on the ground of settlement arrived

between the petitioner accused and 2nd respondent-defacto

complainant (victim).

2. Heard Sri.U.K.Devidas, learned counsel for the

petitioner-accused, Sri.Amjad Ali, learned Prosecutor appearing for

1st respondent-State of Kerala and Sri.Prinsun Philip, learned

counsel appearing for respondents 2 3 (victim and her mother).

3. The petitioner is the sole accused in the instant Crime

No.203/2016 of Thenhippalam Police Station, which has been

registered for offence punishable under Sec.376 of the SectionI.P.C, Secs.5

6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO)

and Sec.75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
::3::

Crl.MC.No.1638 OF 2018

Act. The Investigating Officer, after completing the investigation

has filed Anx-II Final Report in Crime No.203/2016 of

Thenhippalam Police Station, which led to the institution of

S.C.No.709/2016 on the file of Additional Sessions Court-I,

Manjeri.

4. The brief of the prosecution allegation is that the

petitioner-accused, who is the father of the minor victim girl, had

sexually harassed the minor daughter.

5. It is now submitted that the the matter has been settled

between the parties and the mother of the victim girl has sworn to

an affidavit stating that she has settled all the disputes with the

petitioner and that continuation of the above proceedings would be

detrimental to the future life of the minor victim girl and this Court

may quash the impugned proceedings in view of the settlement

arrived at between the petitioner and respondents 2 3.

6. It is by now well established by a catena of rulings of the

Apex Court and various High Courts including this Court that even

non compoundable offences, which emanates from commercial

disputes, could be quashed by this Court in exercise of inherent

extra ordinary powers under Sec.482 of the SectionCr.P.C on the basis of

settlement between the accused and defacto complainant such
::4::

Crl.MC.No.1638 OF 2018

approach for quashment on the ground of settlement should not be

resorted to by the High Courts especially in cases involving grave

and heinous crimes like dacoity, rape, corruption of charges under

the SectionPC Act, etc. Recently a 3 Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the

judgment dated 5.3.2019 rendered in a Criminal Appeal has dealt

with various issues and dimensions of the cases arising out of

quashment of the criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement

between the parties and has held that extra ordinary inherent

powers conferred under Sec. 482 of the SectionCr.P.C is to be exercised for

deserving cases and even if such cases are not compoundable, if

disputations lie within the arena of civil, commercial disputes, etc.,

then such discretion could be exercised. But that, for grave and

heinous crimes, the extra ordinary power conferred under Sec.482

of the SectionCr.P.C is not to be invoked etc.

7. Further it has been held by the Apex Court and various

High Courts including this Court that offence under Sec.376 SectionIPC

(rape) may not be amenable for quashment on the ground of

settlement between the petitioner-accused and the lady defacto

complainant as the offence of rape is not merely one committed

against the lady victim but as against the community at large as it is

an offence directed against womanhood. {see Shimbhu Anr. v.

::5::

Crl.MC.No.1638 OF 2018

State of Haryana [2014 (13) SCC 318], SectionParbatbhai Aahir v. State of

Gujarat [(2017) 9 SCC 641], SectionAnita Maria Dias v. State of

Maharashtra [(2018) 3 SCC 290], SectionSebastian @ Solly v. State of

Kerala [2015 (1) KLJ 384, etc.}. Hence it will not be right and proper

for this court to consider the plea for quashment of the present

impugned criminal proceedings which involve grave and heinous

offence under Sec.376 of the SectionIPC for quashment on the ground of

settlement between the accused and the victim. However, it is

made clear that the observations and findings made by this Court

hearinabove are only from the limited compass as to whether the

plea for quashment on the ground of settlement is to be allowed, in

the facts and circumstances of this case. It is made clear that the

above said findings and observations made by this Court will not in

any manner fetter or prejudice any of the contentions advanced by

the petitioner in appropriate proceedings at the time of trial or in

any other appropriate proceedings involving the present crime.

With these observations and directions, the above Criminal

Miscellaneous Case Stands dismissed.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS,
Judge.

bkn/-

::6::

Crl.MC.No.1638 OF 2018

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE-I. TRUE COPY OF THE FIR WITH FIS IN CRIME
NO.203/2016 OF THENHIPPALAM POLICE
STATION DATED 8/4/2016.

ANNEXURE-II. TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO.203/2016 OF THENHIPPALAM POLICE
STATION DATED 15/8/2016.

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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