LexSTATE OF KERALA AND ORS. ETC. versus O.C. KUTTAN AND ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. ETC.
'
7-
v.
O.C. KUTTAN AND ORS. ETC.
FEBRUARY 17, 1999
B
(G.B. PATTANAIK AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.)
Constitution of lndia-A1ticle 226-Quashing of FIR and criminal
proceedings-{ndian Penal Code 1860, ss. 366A, 372, 376 and 344 r/w s.
c
34--Allegations of rape and of being forced to lead immoral lif e--High Co wt
quashing criminal proceedings against accused persons who had approached
it-Whether sifting the mate1ials and evidence at that stage of the proceedings
wmranted and whether High Cowt's conclusions regarding age of victim and
that she had willingly submitted to sexual activities was justified-Held, this
is not a case where the court should have scuttled investigation by quashing
D FIR, particularly where criminal case had been registered under several
provisions of the !PC and under Immoral Traffic (Preve11tio11) Act-High
Court exceeded its jurisdiction in arriving at its finding~Held further, it· .is
""
not possible and not necessary to comment on the character of the lady at
this stage.
E
On July 23, 1996, on the basis of a statement of a woman giving a
vivid account of how she was exploited, and sexually harassed by a large
number of accused persons under threat, coercion, force and allurement,
a case was registered under ss. 366 A, 372, 376 and 344 r/w 34 IPC. In the
course of the investigation, the victim girl was examined on three oc-
F casions. Five accused persons approached the Kerala High Court seeking
quashing of the allegations as against them. A Division Bench of the High
..,_
...... ~
Court, while setting out the narrative of rape and the events till her arrest
by the police, quashed the criminal proceedings against those who had
r
approached the court. On a comparison of the three statements of the
,
G
victim girl, and based on conjectures, the High Court concluded that she
was above 16 years of age when she went to Ernakulam and indulged in
~
•
immoral activities, and that she had willingly submitted herself to sexual
activities.
"
In appeal before this court, it was argued for the State of Kerala and
H the Kerala Women's Commission that in view of the graphic statements
696
?
STATE v. O.C. KUTTAN
697
of the lady herself, the High Court was in error in preventing investigation A
,.
~
against the accused, who were influential people. It was also contended
that the conclusion regarding the age of the victim girl by sifting the
materials and evidence at this stage was wholly unwarranted. Further, the
allegations amounted not only to the commission of offence of rape but to
offences under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (ITPA) too and the B
High Court had not considered whether,prima facie, the allegations would
constitute offences other than the criminal cases registered. Quashing
proceedings at the stage of FIR in a case of an offence which is having a
cancerous growth and is against the interests of justice cannot, it was
contended, be an abuse of process of court as had been held by the High
Court. It was contended for the accused that the allegations did not make c
out any offence against them. Further, the complainant had added names
during the course of being examined on the second and third occasion and
it was an afterthought to subject the accused to harassment. Her state-
ments also did indicate that there was no force, no coercion and no fear of
life, it was urged, and the allegations do not constitute the offence of rape. D
Allowing the appeal, this Court
>-
HELD : 1.1. The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing
the FIR and the investigations to be made pursuant to the FIR: When
allegations in the FIR do not disclose prim a f acie commission of a cog-
E
nisable offenc~, the High Court would be justified in interfering with the
investigation and quashing the same. [703-A; 701-B]
Sanchaita Investment's case [1982] 1 SCC 561, referred to.
1.2. The power of quashing investigation should, however, be exer-
F
,J.
cised with utmost care and a High Court should be loathe to interfere at
'f
the threshold to thwart the prosecution. It is a power that should be
sparingly and cautiously exercised. [701-H; 702-A]
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, [1992] Supp. 1 SCC 355; State of U.P.
G
v. O.P. Shanna, [1996] 7 SCC 705 and Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar
Bhada, [1997] 2 SCC 397, relied on .
..
...
1.3. The instant case cannot be held to be a case where the court
should have scuttled inExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.