IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2008 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4807 of 2008() ----------------------------------- SC.NO.181/2008 OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA. ................. PETITIONERS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & PROSECUTRIX: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SIVAN KUTTY, AGED 29 YEARS S/O.PODIYAN, MANALUTHARA HOUSE, ELANGAMANGALAM MURI ENATHU VILLAGE. 2. SARITHA, AGED 20 YEARS, D/O.PODIYAN MANALUTHARA HOUSE ELANGAMANGALAM MURI, ENATHU VILLAGE BY ADV. SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR SRI.RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED AND STATE: -------------------------------------------------------- 1. ABU. V., AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.VIKRAMAN, ABUNIVAS, KULAKKADA KIZHAKKU KULAKKADA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4807 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of December 2008 O R D E R Petitioners are the de facto complainant and the prosecutrix/alleged victim in a prosecution under Section 376 I.P.C. The de facto complainant/victim - the second respondent herein is a woman who has attained the age of majority and was aged about 20 years on 22/06/2007. She allegedly eloped with the 1st respondent who allegedly promised to marry her. They lived in various hotels in Bangalore and had sexual intercourse. The 1st petitioner, the brother of the 2nd petitioner filed a complaint on the basis of which a crime under the caption “woman missing” was registered at the local police station. The 2nd petitioner and the 1st respondent returned and thereafter it was complained to the police that the 1st respondent/accused had induced the 2nd petitioner to go with him and had sexual intercourse with him on the promise that he will marry her. Actually he had already got married earlier. 2. Investigation was completed. Final report was filed. Cognizance was taken. The case was committed to the court of Crl.M.C.No.4807/08 2 Session. The trial has not commenced yet. At this juncture, the petitioners have come before this court to report to this court that they have settled all their outstanding disputes with the 1st respondent. They have no grievance now that the sexual intercourses between the 2nd petitioner and the 1st respondent did amount to any offence of rape. In these circumstances, the petitioners pray that the composition may be accepted and the surviving prosecution which has become irrelevant and unnecessary may now be quashed. The 2nd petitioner wants to enter matrimony now with another person. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have considered all relevant inputs. 4. I am satisfied that the prayer of the petitioners which is endorsed by the learned Public Prosecutor that the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 AIR SCW 2287], Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2008(3) KLT 769(SC)] and Manoj Sharma v. State [2008(4)KLT 417 SC] Crl.M.C.No.4807/08 3 may be invoked to prematurely terminate the prosecution against the 1st respondent can safely be accepted. The dispute is one which is personal and private between the 2nd petitioner and the 1st respondent and the stand taken by the petitioners now clearly shows that they have no grievance that her consent for the consensual sexual intercourse was in any way vitiated. 5. In the result, a) This Crl.M.C is allowed. b) S.C.No.181/2008 pending before the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta in which the petitioners are the de facto complainant and victim and the 1st respondent is the accused is hereby quashed. c) Needless to say, the proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C, if any, pending against the 1st respondent and his sureties shall be disposed of by the learned Magistrate, in accordance with law. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.4807/08 4 Crl.M.C.No.4807/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008