IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4677 of 2010 ---------------------------------- [CRIME NO.497/2010 OF THE PATTANAKKAD POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT] ............... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- JYOTHI KUMAR P.T., AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.THANKAPPAN, POLLAYIL HOUSE, CMC 32, CHERTHALA TALUK, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.ASHIK K.MOHAMMED ALI. RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ARTHUNGAL POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT). 2. RAJANI, AGED 22 YEARS, D/O.RAJU, KAMBIYAKATH HOUSE, CMC 32, CHERTHALA TALUK, CHERTHALA. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM, R2 BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH THOMAS. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4677 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner, the accused in Crime No.497/2010 of Pattanakkad Police Station, registered for the offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-A1 FIR, filed this petition to quash the FIR contending that evidenced by Annexure-A2 affidavit of the second respondent, the prosecutrix, entire disputes were settled and therefore, the FIR is to be quashed. 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that she has no subsisting grievance against the petitioner and the disputes were settled and therefore, she has no objection for quashing the proceedings. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 4. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that even if Annexure-A1 FIR is accepted, no offence under Section 376 was committed on 20.11.2010 and as seen from the F.I. Statement, CRMC 4677/10 2 previous instances were with the consent of the second respondent and therefore, the FIR is to be quashed. 5. On hearing the learned counsel, I cannot agree with the submission that the FIR, registered for the offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, is to be quashed based on the settlement, relying on the decision in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19) and Manoj Sharma v. State (2008 (4) KLT 417). An offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code is not an offence purely personal in nature. It is an offence against the society. In such circumstances, based on the settlement, the case cannot be quashed. The case is only at the investigation stage. It is for the Investigating Officer to take into account the entire aspects, including the question whether there was consent or not and submit a final report in accordance with law. Petition is dismissed. 29th November, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv