Out-of-court Settlement in Cases of Sexual Offences Against Children Possible if No Aggravated Assault Involved, Says HC - Read Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/16TH KARTHIKA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 7251 of 2016 ()
---------------------------
CRIME NO. 834/2016 OF OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION , PALAKKAD
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
---------------------
SAJITH S.
AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.SUBHASH CHANDRAN,
KIZHAKKEKARA VEEDU, KAREKKAD,
KAVALAPPARA P.O, SHORNUR, OTTAPPALAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)
SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN
SRI.C.JAYAKIRAN
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE, ALLEGED VICTIM:
------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2. RAVITHA (MINOR), AGED 15 YEARS
REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN/FATHER
RAVEENDRAN, S/O.RAMAN, AGED 45 YEARS,
PALLIPPURATH HOUSE, CHERUKATTUPULAM,
VANIYAMKULAM, OTTAPALAM TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 101.
3. RAVEENDRAN, S/O.RAMAN
AGED 45 YEARS, PALLIPPURATH HOUSE,
CHERUKATTUPULAM, VANIYAMKULAM,
OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 101.
4. REENA
AGED 36 YEARS, W/O.RAVEENDRAN,
PALLIPPURATH HOUSE, CHERUKATTUPULAM,
VANIYAMKULAM, OTTAPALAM TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT -679 101.
R2-4 BY ADV. SRI.VIVEK.JOY.K
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR:SRI E C BINEESH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
07-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 7251 of 2016 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
ANNX.A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR ALONG WITH F.I. STATEMENT IN
CRIME NO.834/2016 OF OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
ANNX.B AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT/FATHER OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT SIGNIFYING THE FACTUM OF THE SETTLEMENT OF THE
DISPUTES WITH THE PETITIONER, FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT, WHO IS A MINOR.
ANNX.C AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT/MOTHER OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT SIGNIFYING THE FACTUM OF THE SETTLEMENT OF THE
DISPUTES WITH THE PETITIONER, FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT, WHO IS A MINOR.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL
True Copy /
P A to Judge
SUNIL THOMAS, J.
=================
Crl.M.C.No.7251 of 2016
=================
Dated this the 7th day of November, 2016
ORDER
Petitioner herein is the sole accused in Crime No.834 of
2016 of Ottappalam Police Station for offences punishable under
section 354A of the Indian Penal Code and sections 7 and 8 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
2. The crux of the allegation of the prosecution is that the
petitioner herein had gone to the de facto complainant to issue the
current bill, after checking up the meter reading. In the course of
the work, he touched the chest of the 15 year minor girl, who was
present there, with a malafide intention and thereby outraged her
modesty. On the basis of the complaint laid by her, crime was
registered for the above offences. Investigation is progressing.
3. Petitioner has now approached this Court stating that,
in the meanwhile, disputes between the parties have been resolved
and parents of the victim have agreed to settle the disputes.
Learned counsel for the victim, who is arrayed as the second
respondent herein, as well as her parents arrayed as respondents
3 and 4 submitted that they have no grievance now and are willing
Crl.M.C.7251/16
2
to compromise the matter. It was also stated that expressing the
above intention, the parents have executed separate affidavits.
Relying on Annexures-B and C affidavits, learned counsel
reiterated that it discloses a fair and genuine intention of the
parties. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the
petitioner is not involved in any other crime and the parties have
resolved their disputes.
4. Though, the allegation includes sexual assault on a
minor woman and the provisions of POCSO have been invoked, it
does not involve an aggravated form of sexual assault. Further,
the question whether it happened accidentally or whether it was
done intentionally is a highly disputed question of fact. Having
regard to these facts, I feel that continuance of the proceedings
may not be in the interest of parties concerned. Hence, I am
inclined to invoke the jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C.
In the result, Crl.M.C is allowed. Entire proceedings
arising from Crime No.834 of 2016 of Ottappalam Police Station
stand quashed.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS
Judge
Sbna/7/11/16
True Copy / P A to Judge