Kerala High Court
Muhammed Shereef vs State Of Kerala
Author: P.Ubaid
Bench: P.Ubaid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID
THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/27TH PHALGUNA, 1937
Crl.MC.No. 886 of 2016 ()
--------------------------
SC. NO.94/2016 OF FIRST ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD.
CRIME NO. 1079/2015 OF PATTAMBI POLICE STATION , PALAKKAD
.......
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
------------------------------------
MUHAMMED SHEREEF, S/O. MUHAMMED KUTTY,
AGED 37 YEARS, KOOTTAPILAVIL HOUSE,
MOORKKANAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN (PALAKKAD).
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND FATHER OF THE VICTIM:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
2. IBRAHIM, AGED 40 YEARS,
S/O.SAIDALAVI, MURIYANKOTTIL HOUSE,
(POST) VILATHOOR, (VIA) THIRUVEGAPURA,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679 309.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S. HYMA.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.DEVESH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 17-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
rs.
The case number ''S.C. No.94/2016'' occurring in the cause title of the final
order dated 17/03/2016 in Crl.M.C. No.886/2016 is corrected and substituted as
''S.C. No.76/2016'' as per order dated 17/06/2016 in Crl.M.A. No.5375/2016 in
Crl.M.C. No.886/2016.
SD/- Assistant Registrar
Crl.MC.No. 886 of 2016
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-
ANNEXURE-1: TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 20.11.2015 OF PATTAMBI
POLICE STATION, CRIME NO.1079/2015.
ANNEXURE-2: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 07.01.2016 IN
PATTAMBI POLICE STATION, CRIME NO.1079/2015.
ANNEXURE-3: THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 01.02.2016 SWORN BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
rs.
P.UBAID, J.
~~~~~~~~~~
Crl. M.C No.886 of 2016
~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 17th March, 2016
O R D E R
The petitioner herein seeks orders quashing the prosecution as against him in S.C94 of 2016 of the Court of Session, Palakkad brought under Sections 363 and 377 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, on the ground of amicable settlement made out of court. The victim of offence in this case is a boy aged 10 years. The police registered crime against the petitioner on the complaint of the father of the victim, who is the 2nd respondent herein. The 2nd respondent has filed affidavit to the effect that the whole dispute stands settled amicably out of court, that he happened to make a complaint on some misapprehension, and that he or his son has no complaint or grievance now.
2. As directed by the court, the victim and his father appeared in court and explained the circumstance of the complaint, and also the circumstance of the reported Crl. M.C No.886 of 2016 2 settlement. The victim submitted before me that the petitioner had not made any sexual or other assault on him, and that his father happened to make a complaint on some misunderstanding. He affirmed that he had not made any statement to the father about anything done by the accused. In the above situation, the learned Public Prosecutor was directed to produce a copy of the statement given by the victim before the learned Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. On a perusal of the said statement, I find that the victim had not stated anything before the learned Magistrate against the petitioner herein. The said statement does not contain anything to incriminate anybody under Section 377 Cr.P.C or under the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. I find that the statements given by the victim before me are really true, that the petitioner herein had not made any sort of assault on him. It is not known how a crime happened to be registered or final report happened to be filed. It is not known why the police did not examine the 164 statement given by the victim when the police submitted final report in Crl. M.C No.886 of 2016 3 court. Anyway, the whole dispute stands resolved forever. I find that continuance of the proceeding or exposure of the child to a trial process will cause embarrassment to the minor boy and such procedure may even affect his studies. He is definite before me that nothing had happened as alleged in the complaint. No doubt, continuance of the proceeding will be a sheer waste of time in the above situation.
In the result, this petition is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioner herein in S.C 94 of 2016 of the Court of Session, Palakkad will stand quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.c Sd/-
P.UBAID
JUDGE
ma
// True copy// PS to Judge
"S.C No.94 of 2016" occurring in the 2nd line of paragraph 1 and 2nd line of last paragraph of the final order dated 17/03/2016 in Crl.M.C No.886/2016 is corrected and substituted as "SC No.76/2016" as per order dated 17/06/2016 in Crl.M.A No.5375/2016 in Crl.M.C No.886/2016.
Sd/- Registrar Judicial