IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2011 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3283 of 2011() ------------------------- (CRIME NO.164/2011 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.1 --------------------------- ASHRAF P.K., AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, S/O.KADER KUTTY, THOTTUMUGHAM, ALUVA EAST, PADINHAR PALLI, P.O.ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. SRI.GEORGE JOSEPH PULIMOOTTIL SRI.K.DILIP SRI.ROVIN RODRIGUES RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------ 1. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KASARAGOD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. ANEESA M., AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, D/O.MOHAMMED HANEEFA, RESIDING AT THALANJARA K.K.PURAM, MASJID QUARTERS P.O.THALANJARA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. PIN-671 121. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN ADV. SMT.ASHA K.SHENOY FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: SU CR.M.C.NO.3283/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE-1. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 18.02.2011. ANNEXURE-2. COPY OF THE FIR NO.164 OF 2011 REGISTERED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT, DT.19.2.2011. ANNEXURE-3. COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 11.09.2011. RESPONDANTS' ANNEXURES: NIL. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE SU N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.3283 of 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of October 2011 O R D E R This petition is filed by the first accused to quash further proceeding in Crime No.164/2011 of Kasargod Police Station. The crime was registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Secs.365, 366, 406, 417, 376 and 506(1) r/w 34 IPC. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute between the accused and the 2nd respondent, who is the de facto complainant has already been settled and an agreement was entered into between the parties and as such, further proceeding in the aforesaid crime may be quashed. The agreement stated to have been entered into between the parties has been produced before this Court. 3. It is not a case where the dispute is purely Crl.M.C. No.3283 of 2011 -: 2 :- personal. The offence under Sec.376 IPC is offending public policy and morality and as such, it is not a case which should be allowed to be compounded. 4. Now the case is only under investigation. The Investigating Officer may have to collect materials to find the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made by the de facto complainant and based on the materials so collected, the final report is to be filed. At this stage, it is not proper to interfere with the investigation. The petitioner is at liberty to move the court after the charge sheet is filed. Hence, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt