Rasheed, vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Apr 23, 2021

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1628783

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1628783
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice K.Haripal
Decided On: Apr 23, 2021
Case Number: Crl.MC/2093/2021

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rasheed,

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....offence punishable under sections 354a(1)(i), 363 ipc and also sections 7 and 8 of the pocso act, 2012.2. the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that thepetitioner is now abroad and that the marriage between the petitioner and the defacto complainant is fixed and he is scheduled to come to the native place for conducting the marriage. in other words, the matter issettled. in support of the said statement, he has also produced annexure -a2, affidavit of the defacto complainant, girl-aged 20 years. she has stated in the affidavit that they want to get married and that the pendency of the case is standing on the way of their marriage. she has no objection in quashing the proceedings.3. i heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the defacto complainant.4. it is very patent from the statement of the defactocomplainant that the matter has been settled and their marriage is fixed. it is the settled proposition of law that, notwithstanding the gravity of the offence, if the parties themselves reach a settlement, the court need not stand in the way of giving its stamp of approval.the hon'ble supreme court has, in number of cases, ruled that when the parties themselves reach a settlement, the court shall not refuse to exercise its jurisdiction under section 482 cr.p.c or article 226 of the constitution of india. in such matters, the court has to take a pragmatic stand. even if the investigation is completed and a final report is laid, in the circumstance that the defacto complainant is not going to support the case, it will be an idle exercise to proceed with the matter. in the circumstances, all further proceedings in annexure- a1 f.i.r are liable to be quashed. the crl.m.c. is allowed as above.sd/- k.haripal judge nr/23/04/2021 appendix petitioner's exhibits: annexure a1 certified copy of fir no.385 of 2020 of patambi police station. annexure a2 original affidavit of the 2nd respondent dated 1.4.2021. //true.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 3RD VAISAKHA, 1943 CRIME NO.385/2020 OF PATTAMBI POLICE STATION , PALAKKAD PETITIONER/ACCUSED: RASHEED, AGED 25 YEARS S/O. ABOOBAKER, VATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, THIRUVEGAPURA, PATTAMBI P.O., PALAKKAD-679 304. BY ADV. SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN RESPONDENTS/STATE AND THE VICTIM: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 023. 2 XXXX R2 BY ADV. VYKHARI.K.U ADV.SRI.SANTHOSH PETER, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This is an application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C by the sole accused in Crime No.385/2020 of Pattambi Police Station in Palakkad District, which was registered on 27/07/2020 alleging offence punishable under Sections 354A(1)(i), 363 IPC and also Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner is now abroad and that the marriage between the petitioner and the defacto complainant is fixed and he is scheduled to come to the native place for conducting the marriage. In other words, the matter is

settled. In support of the said statement, he has also produced Annexure -A2, affidavit of the defacto complainant, girl-aged 20 years. She has stated in the affidavit that they want to get married and that the pendency of the case is standing on the way of their marriage. She has no objection in quashing the proceedings.

3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the defacto complainant.

4. It is very patent from the statement of the defacto

complainant that the matter has been settled and their marriage is fixed. It is the settled proposition of law that, notwithstanding the gravity of the offence, if the parties themselves reach a settlement, the Court need not stand in the way of giving its stamp of approval.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in number of cases, ruled that when the parties themselves reach a settlement, the Court shall not refuse to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C or Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In such matters, the Court has to take a pragmatic stand. Even if the investigation is completed and a final report is laid, in the circumstance that the defacto complainant is not going to support the case, it will be an idle exercise to proceed with the matter. In the circumstances, all further proceedings in Annexure- A1 F.I.R are liable to be quashed. The Crl.M.C. is allowed as above.

Sd/- K.HARIPAL JUDGE NR/23/04/2021 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR NO.385 OF 2020 OF PATAMBI POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2 ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 1.4.2021. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2021 Same Parties Rasheed, vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice K.Haripal