Electricity Act 2003 | Section 56(2) Does Not Preclude Licensee From Raising Supplementary Demand After Two Years; Only Restricts Right To Disconnect: Supreme Court Dissolution Of Partnership At Will | Outgoing Partner Entitled To Market Value Of Assets As On Date Of Distribution, Not Date Of Dissolution: Supreme Court SEBI | Release Of Escrow Under Buyback Regulations Does Not Preclude Independent Inquiry Into Fraud Under PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Promotion Based On Merit Does Not Wipe Out Past Adverse Records But Must Be Balanced In FR 56(j) Compulsory Retirement: Supreme Court Appellate Court Can Convict For Offence Even If Charge Not Framed By Trial Court Under Section 464 CrPC: Supreme Court Extradition | Sovereign Assurance Does Not Override Judicial Sentencing; Cannot Be Used To Artificially Accelerate Sentence Completion: Supreme Court Article 21 | State Has A Positive Duty To Protect Public Health By Implementing Front-Of-Package Labelling Regulations: Supreme Court Revenue Entries Are Not Documents Of Title, Cannot Replace Substantive Evidence In Property Disputes: Supreme Court Long Possession Without Hostile Animus Does Not Amount To Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Administrative Discretion Must Comply With Article 14; Subsequent Executive Decisions Cannot Retroactively Cure Failure Of Timely Performance: Supreme Court Municipal Corporation Cannot Unilaterally Downgrade Market Value Of Land Acquired For Road Widening To Deny TDR Certificates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Execution Of Agreement To Sell Does Not Automatically Terminate Existing Tenancy: Allahabad High Court Writ Jurisdiction Not Maintainable When Title To Property Is Under A Cloud And Subject Matter Of Disputed Facts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Amendment Of Plaint Seeking Impleadment Of Third Parties And Addition Of Time-Barred Claims In A Partition Suit Cannot Be Permitted: Bombay High Court Reassessment Order Does Not Result In Merger Of Original Assessment Order If Issues Are Distinct: Andhra Pradesh High Court GST Assessment Order Uploaded Only Under 'Additional Notices' Tab Without Separate Intimation Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court 'Prolonged Inaction' Cannot Be Rewarded: Delhi High Court Upholds CESTAT Refusal To Condone 968-Day Delay In Filing Customs Appeal Probate No Longer Mandatory To Establish Rights Under A Will Following 2025 Amendment To Indian Succession Act: J&K High Court Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used To Introduce New Factual Foundations Or Reopen Concluded Arbitral Awards: Karnataka High Court High Court Cannot Invoke Article 227 To Strike Off Plaint When Statutory Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Is Available: Madras High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Arrest And Subsequent Remand: Orissa High Court Arbitrator Is The Sole Judge Of Quality And Quantity Of Evidence, Court Cannot Act As Court Of Appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 5 Limitation Act | Court Cannot Condone Delay In A Mechanical Manner Without Ascertaining Bona Fides Of The Applicant: Calcutta High Court High Court Cannot Quash FIR Under Section 482 CrPC By Conducting Mini-Trial On Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Taxation Law | Mere Assertion Of Natural Justice Violation On Disputed Facts Won't Bypass Statutory Appeal: Delhi High Court

Kerala High Court Quashes Charges In POSCO Case – Ends of Justice Demand Compromise

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Kerala High Court, presided over by the Honorable Mr. Justice Gopinath P., has quashed charges against an accused individual, marking a significant development in the legal landscape. The judgment, delivered on December 21, 2023, has garnered attention for its profound observations on the importance of justice, compromise, and the well-being of those involved.

The case revolved around allegations against the petitioner, who had been charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (Amended), 2012, 2019. The allegations included sexual abuse and the withdrawal from a proposed marriage.

The court, in its observations, stated, “There is yet another category of cases where though the victim alleged that the sexual assault or rape was forceful or against her will, later, they settled the dispute, got married, and led a peaceful life. Allowing prosecution to continue in those cases would only result in the disturbance of their happy family life.”

The court emphasized that the key factor in such cases is ensuring that the compromise is voluntary and in the best interest of the individuals involved. It further stated, “The court must consider whether the allegations prima facie constitute the ingredients of the offense, whether the settlement is in the best interest of the minor victim, and whether the continuance of the proceedings against the accused and the participation of the minor victim in that proceedings would adversely affect the mental, physical, and emotional well-being of the latter.”

Notably, the court referred to a previous judgment in Vishnu v. State of Kerala [2023 (4) KHC 1], which played a pivotal role in shaping the court’s decision in this case.

In the present case, the petitioner and the victim had not only settled their dispute but had also solemnized their marriage, which was a significant development during the course of the proceedings.

Taking into account all these factors, the court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) and quashed all further proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.622 of 2023.

Date of Decision: December 21, 2023

XXXXXXXXXX VS  STATE OF KERALA

 

Latest Legal News