Case title:
Kripesh Krishnan vs The State of Kerala
Date of Order:
26th June, 2023
Bench:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.Babu
Parties:
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
Kripesh Krishnan
RESPONDENTS/STATE:
The State of Kerala
SUBJECT
- The petitioner demands that Crime No. 188/2017 at Neeleswaram Police Station, Kasaragod District, be declared invalid as well as the concluded report in Annexure-A5 and all subsequent investigations in which he is an accused.
- The Court terminated petitioner's pending criminal proceedings under Section 482 of CrPC, annulled proceedings, granted Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C.), and granted Criminal Petition No. 61 of 2017.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the alleged sexual contact between the parties was consensual, and if it does meet the criteria for the offence under Section 375 of the IPC, which is punishable under Section 376 of the IPC.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- In accordance with Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code, rape is punishable by harsh imprisonment, with the exception of the circumstances listed in Subsection (2). Although it may go up to life in prison, the sentence must not be less than ten years. The offender might be compelled to pay a penalty.
- Saving of inherent powers of High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Nothing in this Code shall be construed as restricting or affecting the inherent authority of the High Court to issue any orders that may be required to carry out any orders made hereunder, to prevent abuse of any Court’s process, or to further the objectives of justice in any other manner.
OVERVIEW
- In Neeleswaram Police Station Crime No. 188/2017, the petitioner is a defendant. The Indian Penal Code's Section 376(1) lays out the charges against him.
- On 26.3.2017, Respondent No. 2 was reported missing. Neeleswaram Police then filed a FIR in accordance with Section 57 of the Kerala Police Act. They followed her to her parents' home close to the airport in Calicut. She stated that she was in love with a married ship worker.
- In her declaration made according to Section 164 Cr.P.C., Respondent No. 2 disclosed that she had been in contact with the petitioner since 2016. The petitioner wanted to quit the connection but insisted on keeping it and even threatened to commit suicide if she tried to do so.
- After conducting an investigation, the Police submitted a final report in which they charged the petitioner with a crime covered by Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER
- The petitioner seeks to quash the entire criminal proceedings on the ground that the parties settled their disputes.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- Respondent No.2 filed an affidavit stating that she has settled her dispute with the petitioner and that she does not want to proceed with the criminal prosecution against him.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC), Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and Others [(2014) 6 SCC 466], and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others [(2019) 5 SCC 688] were cases where the Apex Court examined the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to dismiss criminal proceedings in FIRs or complaints when the offences are not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.
- The Apex Court ruled that the High Court can examine material for incorporation or sufficient evidence in cases involving heinous offenses, while also considering the potential for harmony and improved mutual relationships.
- A First Information Report (FIR) in the Kapil Gupta case was thrown out by the Supreme Court because of the peculiarities of the situation. The second respondent, a 23-year-old lady, worries that going to court as both a complainant and an accused party may rob her of her youth.
- Denying the motion of Respondent No. 2 would burden the already overburdened criminal courts because Respondent No. 2 does not assist the prosecution's case. Although the court agreed that it should normally abstain from dismissing cases involving serious crimes like rape, it decided that in this particular instance it was permissible to use the Court's extraordinary powers to do so.
- The case has not been committed to Sessions Court for trial, and respondent No.2 is not supporting the prosecution case. The petitioner argues that the alleged sexual relationship incidents were based on consent between the parties, and therefore do not constitute the required ingredients of the offense under Section 375 of IPC, punishable under Section 376 IPC.
- Without directly defining “consent,” Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) describes voluntary involvement in light of the act’s importance and moral character. Consent may be freely given, implied, coerced, misinterpreted, or obtained via trickery.
- In order to exercise its inherent authority under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court therefore terminated the petitioner’s pending criminal proceedings.
- All further proceedings in Criminal Petition No. 61 of 2017, which was pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-II, Hosdurg were annulled and the Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C.) was granted.
