Anu Anil Nair vs State Of Kerala & Anr.

This petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”) by the sole accused in Crime No.706/2024 of Kalamassery Police Station, registered alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354(A)(1)(ii), 354B, 376, 509 and 451 of the Indian Penal Code, now pending as C.P.No.5/2025 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalamassery, seeking to quash Annexure B FIR, Annexure C Final Report arising from the said FIR and all further proceedings pursuant to the same.

The prosecution's case is as follows:

On 13.05.2024, at 2:30 p.m, the accused, with an intention to sexually abuse the de facto complainant, inside her residential house, stating that their betrothal ceremony had already been conducted, caught hold of her hands with an intention to have sexual intercourse with her. When the de facto complainant did not concede to his demand, the accused made repeated requests, and as the de facto complainant did not heed his demand, the accused slapped her cheek, caught hold of her neck, pushed her down to the bed and committed rape on her after forcefully disrobing her. Thereafter, the accused, with an intention to outrage the modesty of the de facto complainant, body-shamed her in the presence of her friends and withdrew from the marriage. Thus, the accused is alleged to have committed the aforementioned offences.

The crux of the petitioner’s case is that the matter involved in this case has been amicably settled between him and the de facto complainant out of court. In the petition, it is further stated that the de facto complainant has no subsisting grievance against the petitioner, and she has filed an affidavit stating that she does not intend to proceed with the matter further. Another contention taken by the petitioner is that he and the de facto complainant, who are M.B.B.S. graduates, were in love since 2022. According to the petitioner, their marriage engagement ceremony was conducted on 25.03.2023 at the house of the de facto complainant, and a bangle and a wristwatch were exchanged at the time of the engagement. But later, the relationship between the petitioner and the de facto complainant became strained due to physical and mental incompatibility since October 2023. Subsequently, due to some misunderstanding, the present case happened to be registered at the instance of the de facto complainant. According to the petitioner, during the crime stage, the de facto complainant filed an affidavit stating that the matter involved in this case had been settled at the time of consideration of the bail application filed by the accused, and taking note of the said fact, the Sessions Judge granted bail to him after eight days of his judicial incarceration. According to the petitioner, as the matter is settled with the de facto complainant, the present petition seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings is liable to be allowed in the interest of justice, particularly since the continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law and a wastage of judicial time.

Heard Sri. Raman Pillai, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Smt.Seena. C, the learned Public Prosecutor.

This is a case in which an unmarried lady was allegedly forcefully subjected to sexual intercourse by the accused. From the allegation contained in the FIR, it is evident that prior to the incident, the marriage between the de facto complainant and the accused was fixed. There is a specific allegation that on the alleged date of the incident, the accused, who came to the house of the de facto complainant, requested the de facto complainant to have sexual intercourse with him, and when she did not heed to his demand, he physically assaulted her and engaged in sexual intercourse with her forcefully after disrobing her. The second part of the alleged incident is that after violating the de facto complainant, the accused withdrew from the marriage and also body-shamed her in front of the friends of the de facto complainant. Undisputedly, a bare perusal of the statement given by the victim to the police prima facie reveals that if the allegations in the said statement are taken at face value, it would certainly constitute the offences alleged in this case.

I am not unmindful of the fact that the petitioner is not seeking quashment of the case on merits, instead, he seeks the said relief on the ground that the matter involved in this case has been settled by him and the de facto complainant. As already stated, an affidavit sworn to by the de facto complainant stating that the matter has been settled and she is not interested in proceeding with the case any further is also produced along with this petition. In the affidavit, it is affirmed that the crime was happened to be registered due to some misunderstanding, and she does not intend to prosecute the matter.

While considering the settlement, it cannot be ignored that, as evident from the petition itself, on an earlier occasion, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing Crl. M.C No. 7227/2025 along with an affidavit of the de facto complainant to quash the final report on the bedrock of the settlement with the de facto complainant. However, the said petition later happened to be withdrawn on account of some misunderstanding between the parties. Therefore, nobody could be blamed if it is found that the de facto complainant is not consistent in her stand.

Moreover, the crime involved in this case is grave and heinous. The matter involved in this case cannot be reduced to a private dispute between two parties. Further, the offence alleged in this case is non-compoundable. This Court is not oblivious of the law that this Court can invoke its jurisdiction under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. even in cases involving non-compoundable offences and can quash the proceedings based on the settlement arrived at between the parties.

However, in cases of a serious nature that affect society at large, this court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. to quash the proceedings based on a compromise executed by the parties. In this regard, I am fortified by the decision in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another [2012(10) SCC 303]. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again cautioned the High Courts against the exercise of powers under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. for quashing cases wherein heinous and serious offences are involved. Having regard to the heinous and serious nature of the offence alleged in this case, I am of the view that the criminal proceedings against the accused cannot be quashed even though the victim and the offender had settled the disputes. The offence involved in this case is obviously not private in nature and certainly has a serious impact on society. Therefore, the compromise said to have been arrived at between the accused and the de facto complainant cannot be taken as a reason to quash the proceedings against the accused.

On the basis of the above discussion, I find that the prayer of the petitioner to quash the proceedings against him cannot be allowed.

Resultantly, this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.