IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2011 / 1ST MAGHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4784 of 2010() -------------------------------------- C.P.8/98 IN L.P.R.79/2000 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT AT CHALAKUDY. ...... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- MUNEER, S/O.ADRUMAN, NALAKATH VEETIL, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.SHEEJO CHACKO, SRI.A.G.UNNIKRISHNAN. RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALA THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. 2. RAZIA, PULLARKKATTUVEETIL, KOONAMPARAMBU DESOM, MALA, VADAMA VILLAGE - 676 121. 3. ALEENA, W/O.PULLARKKATTUVEETIL KUNJALI, KOONAMPARAMBU DESOM, MALA, VADAMA VILLAGE, MALA, PIN - 676 121. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K.PUSHPALATHA R2 BY ADV. SRI.SREEPRAKASH K.NAIR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4784 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 21st day of January, 2011 ORDER It is said, respondent No.2 was a maid servant in the house of petitioner during the time of alleged incident in the year 1996. While so, respondent No.2 filed Annexure-A1, complaint before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chalakkudy alleging that petitioner subjected her to sexual intercourse without her consent. That complaint was forwarded to the police for investigation under Sec.156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “Code”).Mala police registered Crime No.106 of 1996, investigated and submitted Annexure-2, refer report stating that it is a mistake of fact. Investigation revealed that sexual intercourse was with the consent of respondent No.2. Not satisfied with that report, mother of respondent No.2 (she is respondent No.3) filed a protest complaint (Annexure-3), as C.M.P.No.8854 of 1996. After compliance with the necessary formalities that complaint was taken on file and learned Magistrate initiated proceedings against petitioner as C.P.No.8 of 1998 (Annexure-4 is the proceeding). It is submitted that parties have now settled the dispute among them. Petitioner is working Crl.M.C.No.4784 of 2010 -: 2 :- in Dubai. He states that he was not served with summons, but the learned Magistrate has issued a non bailable warrant against him. In the light of the compromise between the parties petitioner requested this court to quash the proceedings against him. 2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, respondent Nos.2 and 3 and learned Public Prosecutor. Learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions from the officers concerned, reported that the matter has been settled between petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3. 3. It is seen from Annexure-2, report that police after investigation referred the case as a mistake of fact on the conclusion that it was a consented act between petitioner and respondent No.2. It is seen that at the relevant time petitioner was aged 22 years while respondent No.2 was aged about 26 years. Annexure-5 is the notarized affidavit of respondent No.2. It is stated in Annexure-5 that the matter is settled between herself and petitioner, she does not want to proceed with the complaint any further. 4. Primarily this is a matter between petitioner and respondent No.2. Admittedly respondent No.2 was aged 26 years Crl.M.C.No.4784 of 2010 -: 3 :- at the relevant time. I stated that in Annexure-2, police reported that it was a consented act. Now respondent No.2 has no quarrel with petitioner and she has settled the dispute. In that situation, possibility of a successful prosecution is bleak. Since parties have settled the matter I am inclined to allow the request. Resultantly this criminal miscellaneous case is allowed and Annexures-3 and 4, protest complaint and proceedings in C.P.No.8 of 1998 on the file of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chalakkudy against petitioner are quashed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-