IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2011 / 22ND POUSHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 5 of 2011() --------------------- CRIME NO. 676/09 OF FEROKE POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE ................................. PETITIONER / ACCUSED : ------------------------------------- JAMSHOOD, S/O.ABDUL HAMEED, VETTUVANTHODI HOUSE, KARUVANTHURUTHI, FEROKE, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS / COMPLAINANT : ------------------------------------------------- 1. KHADEEJATHUL KUBRA, D/O.MUHAMMED ASHRAF, PUNCHAKUZHIYIL, THUMBAPADAM, FEROKE, KOZHIKODE. 2. S.I. OF POLICE, FEROKE POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.HANSON.P.MATHEW R2 & R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.J. MOHAMMED ANSARI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.5 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 12th day of January, 2011 O R D E R This petition is filed by the accused in Crime No.676 of 2009 of Feroke police station for offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. That case was registered on information given by the de facto complainant, then aged 17 years that when she was studying for +2 course she fell in love with the petitioner, he invited her to the house of his friend, both of them went there, themselves and the friend of petitioner talked for some time in the house and later she was taken inside the house where petitioner wanted to have sexual intercourse with her. When she resisted, petitioner offered to marry her and then she agreed for sexual intercourse with petitioner. Later petitioner withdrew from his promise. Thereon de facto complainant filed the complaint. It is stated that the case is settled between petitioner and respondent No.1-de facto complainant. Respondent No.1 has filed an affidavit (Annexure-B) stating that the matter is settled with the petitioner, she has no grievance against petitioner, herself and petitioner are in cordial relationship and she has no objection in quashing the CRL.M.C. No.5 of 2011 -: 2 :- FIR. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, respondent No.1 and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that respondent No.1 is married and is now settled at Kozhikode. Learned counsel says that if proceedings in the case continued in spite of the compromise entered into between petitioner and respondent No.1, it may affect the future of respondent No.1 adversely and disrupt her family life. I have given an anxious consideration of the submission made by the learned counsel. No doubt the offence committed is of serious nature. But I have gone through the FIR given by respondent No.1 the crux of which I have stated above. Petitioner has a case that the alleged act was with the consent of respondent No.1. I am not going into that question in the light of the composition entered into between the parties. But fact remained that petitioner and respondent No.1 were in love with each other for quite some time even according to respondent No.1. Having regard to the settlement reached between petitioner and respondent No.1, that respondent No.1 is now leading a settled married life elsewhere and the continuation of the proceeding might disrupt her family life and also since continuation of the proceeding will not yield CRL.M.C. No.5 of 2011 -: 3 :- the expected result as respondent No.1 has taken the stand that she has settled the mater with the petitioner I am inclined to interfere under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Resultantly, Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. Annexure-A, FIR in Crime No.676 of Feroke police station and all proceedings thereto are quashed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv