IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2008 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 771 of 2008() ------------------------ CP.28/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, ATTINGAL .................... PETITIONER: --------------------- VIJAYAPRASAD, S/O.VIJAYAN, THIRUVATHIRA, KUZHIVILA, KULATHUR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADINAMKULAM. 2. ABDUL RAHIMAN, NELLIVIALAKATHU VEEDU, CHITTATIN MUKKU, KANIYAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No.771 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of March, 2008 ORDER The petitioner, one Vijayaprasad, who is the sole accused in Crime No.3 of 2007 of Kadinamkulam, Police Station, for an offence punishable under Section 366(A) IPC, seeks to quash Annexure A1 FIR, Annexure A4 Charge Sheet and all further proceedings in C.P.No.28 of 2007 on the file of the J.F.C.M-I, Attingal. The above crime was registered at the instance of one Abdul Rahiman, father of one Jaseela. The petitioner and the said Jaseela claimed to have been love with each other. Since she was aged 17 years and then a minor, in a petition for Habeas Corpus filed by her father-the de facto complainant, the girl was produced before this Courtand she was handed over to her father. 2. A Division Bench of this Court in Annexure A2 judgment dated 12.01.07 noticed that she had completed the age of consent and there was no abduction and that her parents had assured that she will not be harassed and she will not even be compelled to marry against her wishes. When Jaseela attained majority, the petitioner filed a writ of Habeas Corpus. This Court observed that even though she was living with her parents she Crl.M.C.No. 771of 2008 2 was free to pursue her studies at Calicut. This Court also recorded her statement to the effect that she had gone with the petitioner herein on her own accord and there was no abduction. 3. The de facto complainant has recently made a statement before the Kadinamkulam Police to the effect that it was an infatuation which inspired his daughter to go with the petitioner and that it was agreed before this Court that the petitioner will not disturb his daughter and further that he has no surviving grievance in the matter against the petitioner herein. 4. If so, no useful purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution against the petitioner. The de facto complainant also has no subsisting grievance and if the proceedings are continued his daughter, who has just attained majority will have to go to the court and give evidence in respect of a dead issue. Under these circumstances, Annexure A1 FIR, Annexure A4 Final Report as well as the proceedings in C.P.No.28 of 2007 pending before the J.F.C.M-I, Attingal shall stand quashed. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj