IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/27TH POUSHA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 53 of 2017 ()
-------------------------
SC. NO.523/2016 OF 1ST ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR.
CRIME NO. 1926/2014 OF PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR.
......
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
-----------------------------------
SWAMI VASUPRADANANDA,
AGED 45, S/O. GAHANANDA,
C/O. SWAMI ABHIRAMANANDA, SECRETARY,
RAMAKRISHNA MISSION VIDYALAYA, COIMBATORE,
TAMILNADU- 641 020.
BY ADVS.SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR,
SRI.K.SHAJ.
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031.
2. SARAMMA, AGED 55 YEARS,
W/O. RAVEENDRAN, IKKARATHAZHATHU HOUSE,
CHANDINIKADU, PANICHIKADU VILLAGE,
KOTTAYAM.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.E.C. BINEESH.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 17-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
rs.
Crl.MC.No. 53 of 2017
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-
ANNEXURE A1. COPY OF THE FIR AND FINAL REPORT GIVEN TO THE
PETITIONER FROM THE IST ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT,
THRISSUR IN SC.523/2016 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.1926/2014
OF PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, ALONG WITH THE
TYPED COPY OF ALL THE PAGES THAT ARE WRITTEN
USING CARBON PAPER.
ANNEXURE A2. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT GIVEN BY
ANANTHAKRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI DATED 30.12.2016.
ANNEXURE A3. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT GIVEN BY ROHIT DATED 31.12.2016.
ANNEXURE A4. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT GIVEN BY 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 19.11.2016.
ANNEXURE A5. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF ADITYAN DATED 19.11.2016.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
rs.
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C. No. 53 of 2017
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated 17th January, 2017
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ORDER
1.The petitioner herein is the accused in S.C.No.523 of 2016
on the file of the 1st Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur.
In the aforesaid case, he faces indictment under Sections
8 and 10 read with Section 9 (d)(m) of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short
'POCSO Act') and under Section 377 of the IPC.
2.The petitioner was working as a warden of the Sree
Ramakrishna Gurukula Vidyamandir Higher Secondary
School at Puranattukara, Thrissur. The Ramakrishna Math
and Mission is running the said school.
3.According to the prosecution, the grandson of the 2nd
respondent while studying in the 5th standard was staying
in the boys' hostel. The specific allegation is that the
petitioner had subjected the aforesaid minor boy to
aggravated form of sexual assault. I do not think it
Crl.M.C. No.53 of 2017 -2-
necessary to detail the overt acts committed by the
petitioner.
4.According to the petitioner, the allegations are falsely
foisted and he is innocent. The senior students of the said
school was aggrieved as the petitioner is a strict
disciplinarian. According to the learned counsel, in the
course of proceedings, the disputes have been resolved.
Affidavit sworn to by the 2nd respondent and two students
who had allegedly narrated the acts of the petitioner are
relied on by the learned counsel to contend that the
continuation of criminal proceedings is nothing but a futile
exercise. The learned counsel would further contend that
the petitioner is a monk and he has been exculpated after
an internal enquiry conducted by the mission.
5.The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submits that
the allegations leveled against the petitioner are
extremely serious and involves a minor boy who was
Crl.M.C. No.53 of 2017 -3-
studying in the 5th standard at the relevant point of time.
It is further submits that the petitioner was the hostel
warden and the act committed by the petitioner cannot be
condoned by no stretch of imagination. Relying on the
decision of the Apex Court in Gian singh v. State of
Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 as well as in Narinder singh
v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, it is submitted
that this is not a fit case where this Court will be justified
in quashing the proceedings on the ground of a reported
settlement.
6.I have considered the rival submissions and have gone
through the materials on record. The allegations are
under the provision of POCSO Act and under Section 377
of the IPC. After having gone through the materials on
record, I am of the considered view that the extraordinary
powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code cannot
be invoked in a case of instant nature to quash the
Crl.M.C. No.53 of 2017 -4-
proceedings. The allegations raised are serious and a
minor child is involved. By no stretch of imagination, can
it be held to be an offence as between the private parties
simplicitor. Offence of this nature will have a serious
impact on the society at large and any settlement arrived
at between the guardian and the witnesses cannot be
given the imprimatur of this Court. (see State of M.P. V
Manish and others [2015(8) SCC 307]. However, having
regard to the fact that the crime was registered in the
year 2014, I direct the learned Sessions Judge to expedite
the trial proceedings and take the matter to a logical
conclusion at the earliest. With these observations this
petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V.,
JUDGE
kp/21.1.17
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/27TH POUSHA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 53 of 2017 ()
-------------------------
SC. NO.523/2016 OF 1ST ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR.
CRIME NO. 1926/2014 OF PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR.
......
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
-----------------------------------
SWAMI VASUPRADANANDA,
AGED 45, S/O. GAHANANDA,
C/O. SWAMI ABHIRAMANANDA, SECRETARY,
RAMAKRISHNA MISSION VIDYALAYA, COIMBATORE,
TAMILNADU- 641 020.
BY ADVS.SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR,
SRI.K.SHAJ.
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031.
2. SARAMMA, AGED 55 YEARS,
W/O. RAVEENDRAN, IKKARATHAZHATHU HOUSE,
CHANDINIKADU, PANICHIKADU VILLAGE,
KOTTAYAM.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.E.C. BINEESH.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 17-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
rs.
Crl.MC.No. 53 of 2017
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-
ANNEXURE A1. COPY OF THE FIR AND FINAL REPORT GIVEN TO THE
PETITIONER FROM THE IST ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT,
THRISSUR IN SC.523/2016 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.1926/2014
OF PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, ALONG WITH THE
TYPED COPY OF ALL THE PAGES THAT ARE WRITTEN
USING CARBON PAPER.
ANNEXURE A2. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT GIVEN BY
ANANTHAKRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI DATED 30.12.2016.
ANNEXURE A3. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT GIVEN BY ROHIT DATED 31.12.2016.
ANNEXURE A4. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT GIVEN BY 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 19.11.2016.
ANNEXURE A5. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF ADITYAN DATED 19.11.2016.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
rs.
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C. No. 53 of 2017
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated 17th January, 2017
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ORDER
1.The petitioner herein is the accused in S.C.No.523 of 2016
on the file of the 1st Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur.
In the aforesaid case, he faces indictment under Sections
8 and 10 read with Section 9 (d)(m) of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short
'POCSO Act') and under Section 377 of the IPC.
2.The petitioner was working as a warden of the Sree
Ramakrishna Gurukula Vidyamandir Higher Secondary
School at Puranattukara, Thrissur. The Ramakrishna Math
and Mission is running the said school.
3.According to the prosecution, the grandson of the 2nd
respondent while studying in the 5th standard was staying
in the boys' hostel. The specific allegation is that the
petitioner had subjected the aforesaid minor boy to
aggravated form of sexual assault. I do not think it
Crl.M.C. No.53 of 2017 -2-
necessary to detail the overt acts committed by the
petitioner.
4.According to the petitioner, the allegations are falsely
foisted and he is innocent. The senior students of the said
school was aggrieved as the petitioner is a strict
disciplinarian. According to the learned counsel, in the
course of proceedings, the disputes have been resolved.
Affidavit sworn to by the 2nd respondent and two students
who had allegedly narrated the acts of the petitioner are
relied on by the learned counsel to contend that the
continuation of criminal proceedings is nothing but a futile
exercise. The learned counsel would further contend that
the petitioner is a monk and he has been exculpated after
an internal enquiry conducted by the mission.
5.The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submits that
the allegations leveled against the petitioner are
extremely serious and involves a minor boy who was
Crl.M.C. No.53 of 2017 -3-
studying in the 5th standard at the relevant point of time.
It is further submits that the petitioner was the hostel
warden and the act committed by the petitioner cannot be
condoned by no stretch of imagination. Relying on the
decision of the Apex Court in Gian singh v. State of
Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 as well as in Narinder singh
v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, it is submitted
that this is not a fit case where this Court will be justified
in quashing the proceedings on the ground of a reported
settlement.
6.I have considered the rival submissions and have gone
through the materials on record. The allegations are
under the provision of POCSO Act and under Section 377
of the IPC. After having gone through the materials on
record, I am of the considered view that the extraordinary
powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code cannot
be invoked in a case of instant nature to quash the
Crl.M.C. No.53 of 2017 -4-
proceedings. The allegations raised are serious and a
minor child is involved. By no stretch of imagination, can
it be held to be an offence as between the private parties
simplicitor. Offence of this nature will have a serious
impact on the society at large and any settlement arrived
at between the guardian and the witnesses cannot be
given the imprimatur of this Court. (see State of M.P. V
Manish and others [2015(8) SCC 307]. However, having
regard to the fact that the crime was registered in the
year 2014, I direct the learned Sessions Judge to expedite
the trial proceedings and take the matter to a logical
conclusion at the earliest. With these observations this
petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V.,
JUDGE
kp/21.1.17
No comments:
Post a Comment