IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2009 / 1ST POUSHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3911 of 2009() ------------------------- SC.192/2007 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, ATTINGAL .................... PETITIONER(S): CW2: ------------------- ANIJA, D/O.MOLI, ATHIRA VEEDU, PAZHANCHIRA, KADINAMKULAM DESOM, KADINAMKULAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR SRI.P.M.SANEER RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED & CW1: ----------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. JAYAKUMAR (ACCUSED), S/O.APPUKUTTAN NAIR PAZHANCHIRA MANACADU VEEDU, KADINAMKULAM VILLAGE, KADINAMKULAM DESOM. 3. ASHOKAN (CWI), S/O.PUSHPANKARAN, ATHIRA VEEDU, PAZHANCHIRA, KADINAMKULAM DESOM KADINAMKULAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.NO.3911 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 23rd December 2009 O R D E R Petitioner, the prosecutrix in S.C.192/2007 on the file of Assistant Sessions court, Attingal filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the proceedings in S.C.192/2007 contending that entire disputes with the second respondent was settled and in view of the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. It is contended that marriage of the petitioner with the second respondent was solemnised and they are leading a peaceful family life and to preserve the cordial family life, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the Crmc 3911/09 2 prosecution, especially when a child is also born in the wedlock. 2. Learned Sessions Judge has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 366(A) and 376 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-A final report. Prosecution case is that the petitioner, who was the daughter of third respondent, the de facto complainant was induced by second respondent the accused making her believe that he will marry her and took her to the car park to the north of S.N.D.P building at Kadinmankulam village and committed rape and petitioner was aged only 15 and half years at that time. Annexure-B marriage certificate issued by S.N.D.P Yogam establish that marriage of the petitioner with second respondent was solemnised on 14/12/2007. Crmc 3911/09 3 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Allegation against second respondent is that he kidnapped petitioner, a minor and inducing her that he will marry her, committed rape on her. Annexure-B marriage certificate filed by the petitioner establishes that subsequently second respondent fulfilled the promise and married her and a child was born in that wedlock. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that a statement of the petitioner was taken subsequently and it reveals that there has been settlement of the disputes and petitioner is now the wife of second respondent. In the circumstances of the case, when the accused has married the Crmc 3911/09 4 prosecutrix, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution even if the second respondent is to be tried, when petitioner, his wife is living with him, the chances of a successful prosecution is very bleak. Petition is allowed. S.C.192/2007 on the file of Assistant Sessions court, Attingal is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.