IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 25TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 1275 of 2010() ----------------------- LPC.57/2004 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, HOSDRUG ................ PETITIONER / DEFACTO COMPLAINANT : ------------------------------------------------------------- BINDU, AGED 29 YEARS, D/O.KARIYAN, THUNDOOL, KODOM VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENTS / STATE & ACCUSED : ------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE-REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. ASHRAF D.L., AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, THUNGAL, KODOM VILLAGE, P.O.PATTIMARUNNU, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1275 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 14th day of February, 2011 ORDER Petitioner is the de facto complainant and victim in Annexure- AII, final report in Crime No.207 of 2000 of Rajapuram Police Station and L.P.Case.No.57 of 2004 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Hosdurg for offences punishable under Sec.376 of the Penal Code and Sec.3(1)(XI) of the Scheduled Cast and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 (for short, "the Act”). Case is that second respondent making petitioner believe that he would marry her had sexual intercourse with her, she conceived and delivered a child and thereby second respondent committed offences as alleged. Petitioner/de facto complainant seeks to quash proceedings against the second respondent. It is stated that she is getting marriage proposals and that pendancy of the case affects proposals of a good marriage alliance. It is also stated that second respondent has provided compensation for maintenance of the child born to him and in the circumstances, petitioner does not want to proceed with the case. 2. Learned counsel submits that petitioner comes from poor circumstances and her father finds it difficult to send her in Crl.M.C.No.1275 of 2010 -: 2 :- marriage. A trial will be agony for her, it is submitted. Learned Public Prosecutor after getting instruction submitted that parties have settled the dispute. 3. I have gone through Annexure-AI and statement of petitioner as to how the alleged incident occurred. Case is that she was subjected to sexual intercourse several times on promise of marriage. Petitioner states that she has settled the case with second respondent and that she has received compensation for maintenance of the child. Petitioner is now aged about 29 years. When she states that pendancy of the case affects her marriage proposals I am inclined to give a sympathetic consideration of that plea. Moreover since in the nature of the allegations contained in the first information statement referred to above and statement of the second respondent, there is no possibility prosecution having a successful culmination. Hence this petition is allowed. Resultantly this criminal miscellaneous case is allowed. Annexure-AII, final report in Crime No.207 of 2000 of Rajapuram Police Station and proceedings against second respondent in L.P.C.No.57 of 2004 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Hosdurg are quashed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-