IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2008 / 20TH POUSHA 1929 Crl.MC.No.2749 of 2004 (C) -------------------------------- C.P.108/04 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT, PAYYANUR. --------------- PETITIONER: ACCUSED: ---------------------------- KALLATH PRADEEP KUMAR, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN, “GEETHANJALI”, VELLUR, PAYYANUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.SREEJITH S.NAIR RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT/STATE: ---------------------------------------------- 1. V.RAMADEVI, AGED 36 YEARS, D/O.KUNHIRAMAN, KASTUBHAM, PUKKAL, ARAVANCHAL, PAYYANUR. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP M.VARUGHESE SRI.D.K.KUNHIKANNAN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ Crl. M.C. No.2749 of 2004 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of January, 2008 ORDER The petitioner is accused in Annexure-A1 complaint filed by the first respondent alleging commission by him of an offence punishable under Sections 376 and 420 IPC. Annexure-A1 complaint has been registered on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Payyanur as C.P.108/04. The prayer in this Crl.M.C is to quash the proceedings as against the petitioner in C.P.108/04. 2. It is vehemently contended before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is younger than the first respondent by six years that it cannot be believed that he entered into sexual relationship with the first respondent on promise to marry as it is not common in our Crl. M.C. No.2749 of 2004 -2- country that the bridegroom will be younger in age than the bride; that there were money transactions also between the appellant and the first respondent and the first respondent has advanced several amounts to the appellant as evidenced by Annexure-A3 series; that the complaint was being filed by the first respondent to avoid repayment of those amounts; that the case of the complainant is that she had once become pregnant and that underwent an abortion and subsequently, also the appellant had sexual relationship with her whereby she delivered a child; that Annexure- A4 suit was filed in 2004 by the petitioner against the first respondent for recovery of amounts advanced by him and that the complaint is filed against the petitioner with the intention of harassing him and getting him round to marry her and also to give up the claim against her in Annexure-A4 suit. Crl. M.C. No.2749 of 2004 -3- 3. It is seen that Annexure-A4 suit is filed after Annexure-A1 complaint is filed. Hence, Annexure-A4 filed by the petitioner can only be a counter blast to Annexure-A1 complaint. The contention that several amounts had been advanced to the respondent by the petitioner is a circumstance which could work as a double edged sword. The advancement of money also could have been on account of the relationship that the petitioner was maintaining with the first respondent. This Court in a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot hold that Annexure-A1 complaint was filed on account of the apprehension of the first respondent that she may have to repay the amounts to the appellant. The contention that the petitioner was younger in age to the first respondent is also no reason to presume that the complaint is false or ill-conceived. There is no reason Crl. M.C. No.2749 of 2004 -4- for this Court to interfere in a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and to quash Annexure-A1 complaint. This Crl.M.C in the circumstances, is devoid of merit and is dismissed. The petitioner, if so advised may advance all these contentions at the stage of trial in the court below. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-