Naseer vs State of Kerala

K. Abraham Mathew, J.—The petitioner is the sole accused in C.P. No. 88/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kottarakkara. The allegation against him is that he had carnal intercourse with four minor boys against the order of nature and thus committed the offences under Sections 377 IPC and Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenders Act. It is submitted that the matter has been settled and the proceedings in the committal proceedings may be quashed.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondents 2 to 5 and the learned Public Prosecutor.

The petitioner is aged 45 years. The allegation against him is that he had carnal intercourse with four minor boys against the order of nature. Respondents 2 to 5 are fathers of the victims. They have filed separate affidavits to the effect that the matter has been settled and they have no objection to the proceedings in the criminal case being quashed. The petitioners rely on Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, in support of their argument that the proceedings could be quashed.

The offences are not compoundable. In cases where the offences are not compoundable, this Court can exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in appropriate cases if public interest is not involved. So I shall examine whether any public interest is involved in this case.

The petitioner is aged 45 years. All the victims are minor boys. There are four victims. The grounds mentioned for quashing the proceedings are:

(1) No offence is made out by the materials relied on by the prosecution.

(2) The petitioner himself was a victim of a similar offence during his childhood and it caused behavioral abnormalities in him. He has now been treated and the problem has been solved.

This petition is not maintainable on the first ground because if the materials relied on by the prosecution do not reveal commission of any offence the remedy is to plead for discharge. The second ground is that the petitioner himself was a victim of the same offence in his childhood which caused psychological problems in him and that led to his committing the offences. It is also stated that he has been cured of the abnormality. I do not think that this is a sufficient ground to quash the proceedings. In case the petitioner is found guilty and convicted, this may be taken into consideration in imposing the sentence.

In my view, it is against public interest to allow the parties to settle the matter. The proceedings in the criminal case cannot be quashed.

In the result, this Crl. M.C. is dismissed.