Written by: Ishita Pal (Intern)

Edited by: Anubhav Yadav (Content Head & Developer)

A boy raped a minor girl aged 17 years in the house of a second boy. While a case is filed against the boys, the first boy wanted to settle the case and to quash the POCSO Act under which he is suspected. He agreed for settlement via marriage. The accused boy also filed a petition regarding his proposal towards the Karnataka High Court. Advocates C.A Chacko, C. M Charisma, and Alekh Thomas represented the accusers and the public prosecutor Ajith Murali represented the state.

CASE NAME: RAHUL P. R & ANR. V. THE STATE OF KERALA

Facts

• The accused or the present petitioner picked up a 17-year-old minor girl from lawful custody and took her against her will to the rental house of the accused boy’s friend, the second accused.

• They accordingly booked the accused of the offenses punishable under Sections 366A, 376, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 read with Section 3, Section 6 read with Section 5 and Section 17 read with Section 16 of protecting Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2002.

• After being accused, the petitioner had filed a petition regarding quashing the FIR, the final reports, and the proceedings, which will behold further basis under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedural Code which was pending before the 1st Additional District and Session Court.

• According to the petitioner, the victim and the petitioner married each other under the Special Marriage Act on the date of 8th December 2020 to settle between the parties.

• Petitioner also said that the victim (his wife) didn’t want to continue the case and therefore she swore an affidavit regarding this discontinuation of the case.

Judgment

• The crucial question raised before the court was that whether the FIR and the related proceedings registered for an offense, rape of a minor girl could quash within the view of compromising the entire case between the parties under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedural Code or not.

• Representatives of both parties argued among them regarding the present context of this case.

• Noted by the Bench that the Apex Court had a variety of decisions where they also provide the power of inherency to The High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedural Code is about the prevention of the abuse regarding the process of the court and also to be sure about the advancement of justice.

• The court have been given the power under section 482 of the Criminal Procedural Code while recalling it as an exception but not a rule and should use sparingly, with great caution.

• According to the court, the rape of a minor girl is an incontrovertible allegation under which the charges labelled against the petitioner are of special nature.

• While having no such proof about the case which can show that the case is being maliciously instituted or implicated as a false case, the court said that the compromise or the settlement through marriage will not be treated as a valid settlement between the parties.

• As a result, the court dismissed the petition and ordered the petitioners to stand before the judicial scrutiny and face trial before the trial court.

Written by: Ishita Pal (Intern)

Edited by: Anubhav Yadav (Content Head & Developer)

A boy raped a minor girl aged 17 years in the house of a second boy. While a case is filed against the boys, the first boy wanted to settle the case and to quash the POCSO Act under which he is suspected. He agreed for settlement via marriage. The accused boy also filed a petition regarding his proposal towards the Karnataka High Court. Advocates C.A Chacko, C. M Charisma, and Alekh Thomas represented the accusers and the public prosecutor Ajith Murali represented the state.

CASE NAME: RAHUL P. R & ANR. V. THE STATE OF KERALA

Facts

• The accused or the present petitioner picked up a 17-year-old minor girl from lawful custody and took her against her will to the rental house of the accused boy’s friend, the second accused.

• They accordingly booked the accused of the offenses punishable under Sections 366A, 376, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 read with Section 3, Section 6 read with Section 5 and Section 17 read with Section 16 of protecting Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2002.

• After being accused, the petitioner had filed a petition regarding quashing the FIR, the final reports, and the proceedings, which will behold further basis under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedural Code which was pending before the 1st Additional District and Session Court.

• According to the petitioner, the victim and the petitioner married each other under the Special Marriage Act on the date of 8th December 2020 to settle between the parties.

• Petitioner also said that the victim (his wife) didn’t want to continue the case and therefore she swore an affidavit regarding this discontinuation of the case.

Judgment

• The crucial question raised before the court was that whether the FIR and the related proceedings registered for an offense, rape of a minor girl could quash within the view of compromising the entire case between the parties under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedural Code or not.

• Representatives of both parties argued among them regarding the present context of this case.

• Noted by the Bench that the Apex Court had a variety of decisions where they also provide the power of inherency to The High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedural Code is about the prevention of the abuse regarding the process of the court and also to be sure about the advancement of justice.

• The court have been given the power under section 482 of the Criminal Procedural Code while recalling it as an exception but not a rule and should use sparingly, with great caution.

• According to the court, the rape of a minor girl is an incontrovertible allegation under which the charges labelled against the petitioner are of special nature.

• While having no such proof about the case which can show that the case is being maliciously instituted or implicated as a false case, the court said that the compromise or the settlement through marriage will not be treated as a valid settlement between the parties.

• As a result, the court dismissed the petition and ordered the petitioners to stand before the judicial scrutiny and face trial before the trial court.

Written by: Ishita Pal (Intern)

Edited by: Anubhav Yadav (Content Head & Developer)

A boy raped a minor girl aged 17 years in the house of a second boy. While a case is filed against the boys, the first boy wanted to settle the case and to quash the POCSO Act under which he is suspected. He agreed for settlement via marriage. The accused boy also filed a petition regarding his proposal towards the Karnataka High Court. Advocates C.A Chacko, C. M Charisma, and Alekh Thomas represented the accusers and the public prosecutor Ajith Murali represented the state.

CASE NAME: RAHUL P. R & ANR. V. THE STATE OF KERALA

Facts

• The accused or the present petitioner picked up a 17-year-old minor girl from lawful custody and took her against her will to the rental house of the accused boy’s friend, the second accused.

• They accordingly booked the accused of the offenses punishable under Sections 366A, 376, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 read with Section 3, Section 6 read with Section 5 and Section 17 read with Section 16 of protecting Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2002.

• After being accused, the petitioner had filed a petition regarding quashing the FIR, the final reports, and the proceedings, which will behold further basis under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedural Code which was pending before the 1st Additional District and Session Court.

• According to the petitioner, the victim and the petitioner married each other under the Special Marriage Act on the date of 8th December 2020 to settle between the parties.

• Petitioner also said that the victim (his wife) didn’t want to continue the case and therefore she swore an affidavit regarding this discontinuation of the case.

Judgment

• The crucial question raised before the court was that whether the FIR and the related proceedings registered for an offense, rape of a minor girl could quash within the view of compromising the entire case between the parties under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedural Code or not.

• Representatives of both parties argued among them regarding the present context of this case.

• Noted by the Bench that the Apex Court had a variety of decisions where they also provide the power of inherency to The High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedural Code is about the prevention of the abuse regarding the process of the court and also to be sure about the advancement of justice.

• The court have been given the power under section 482 of the Criminal Procedural Code while recalling it as an exception but not a rule and should use sparingly, with great caution.

• According to the court, the rape of a minor girl is an incontrovertible allegation under which the charges labelled against the petitioner are of special nature.

• While having no such proof about the case which can show that the case is being maliciously instituted or implicated as a false case, the court said that the compromise or the settlement through marriage will not be treated as a valid settlement between the parties.

• As a result, the court dismissed the petition and ordered the petitioners to stand before the judicial scrutiny and face trial before the trial court.