IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2009 / 26TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1936 of 2009() ------------------------- CP.108/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- KALLATH PRADEEP KUMAR, AGED 37, S/O.RAGHAVAN, RESIDING AT 'GEETHANJALY' VELLUR, PAYYANNUR (NOW WORKING AT UAE, P.B.NO.5936, SHARJAH, UAE). BY ADVS. MR.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN, MR.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI, MR.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY, MR.M.M.VINOD KUMAR, SMT.K.M.RAMYA. RESPONDENT(S): FORMAL PARTY/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. REMADEVI, AGED 42, D/O.KUNHIRAMAN, 'KAUSTHUBHAM' PUKKAL, ARAVANCHAL, PAYYANNUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA TO BE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. MR.D.AJITHKUMAR R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. VINOD.B. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 1936 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of July, 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused and the first respondent is the complainant in CP No.108/04 before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure I private complaint filed by the first respondent. The allegation in Annexure I complaint is that petitioner and first respondent are relatives and on 07.06.2000, he came to her house under influence of liquor and as there was heavy rain, he stayed in her house and on that day he forcefully had sexual intercourse with her and he consoled first respondent stating that petitioner will marry her and thereafter he started to come to her house and they lived as husband and wife and as a result, she became pregnant and she was taken to the doctor by the petitioner and later he went to UAE on getting employment. On 24.12.01, she suffered miscarriage and on 26.09.03, petitioner came to the native place and on that day also he had sexual intercourse with her and to her dismay petitioner had started to evade from marrying her and thereafter alleging that Crl.M.C: 1936/09 -:2:- petitioner committed offence under Section 376, the complaint was filed. 2. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings contending that the dispute with the first respondent was settled and therefore the case is to be quashed. Annexure II joint statement was filed by the petitioner and the first respondent stating that the first respondent has received Rs.1 lakh from the petitioner and she has agreed to settle the case and therefore she has no objection for quashing the proceedings. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and first respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Though normally a case on the allegation that accused committed an offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code cannot be quashed invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Annexure I complaint shows that the very case is that petitioner and the first respondent had sexual intercourse with her consent and they were living as husband and wife. According to the complaint her only grievance is that, as agreed, petitioner is not prepared to marry her Crl.M.C: 1936/09 -:3:- later. Viewed from this angle when the dispute between the petitioner and the first respondent has been settled amicably, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the proceedings based on the private complaint filed by the first respondent as otherwise it would only result in unnecessary waste of valuable time of the Court. The petition is therefore allowed and proceeding in CP No.108/04 before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur is quashed. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE ttb