IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 22.07.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.O.P.No.15867 of 2010 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010 1.K.Suresh 2.Karupannan 3.Kandhayee 4.Palaniammal 5.Tamilselvi 6.M.Gobi 7.Kaliannan .. Petitioners Vs 1.State represented by Inspector of Police Puduchatiram Police Station, Namakkal District. 2.Sadayappan .. Respondents Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records of the proceedings in S.C.No.75 of 2010 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Namakkal and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.J.Saravanavel For Respondent 1 : Mr.A.Saravanan, GA (Crl.Side) For Respondent 2 : Mr.T.Ravi O R D E R The petitioners, who face prosecution for offences under Sections 363, 366, 366A and 376(i) IPC on the complaint of the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant, father of the girl, who allegedly was kidnapped, seek quash of proceedings in the case. The 1st petitioner is the husband of the victim girl and the petitioners 2 to 7 are the family members of the 1st petitioner. It is contended that the girl was 16 years of age on the date of occurrence viz., 04.06.2006. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ learned counsel for petitioners would rely upon a certificate issued by the school, wherein the girl was studying and which has been produced along with the charge sheet. 2.The school certificate informs that the girl was studying in the 7th standard in the year 2002-03 and that her date of birth was 11.05.1991. This would put the age of the girl beyond 15 years and below 16 years as on the alleged date of occurrence. The statement of the victim girl informs that immediately on leaving the parental home, she married the 1st petitioner and started living in a rented house. This would make applicable the exception to Section 375 IPC. Section 375 IPC defines offence of rape and the exception informs that sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape. The 1st petitioner and the victim girl continue to live as husband and wife and now have two children. 3.The affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant informs that the victim girl viz., the complainant's daughter ran away on 04.06.2006 and got married to the 1st petitioner on the same day. He had preferred a complaint on 08.06.2006, but now, the 1st petitioner and his daughter are happily living together as husband and wife, have two children and the 1st petitioner, who is working as construction worker is taking good care of his daughter. In such circumstances, he would express his desire to withdraw the complaint case. 4.Though charge sheet has been filed, this Court would allow this petition in the circumstances above stated and taking into consideration the affidavit of the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant as also the fact that both the 1st petitioner and his wife, the victim girl along with their two children are present before this Court to affirm the contents thereof. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition shall stand allowed. The proceedings in S.C.No.75 of 2010 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Namakkal shall stand quashed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar gm To 1.The Assistant Sessions Judge, Namakkal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The Inspector of Police, Puduchatiram Police Station, Namakkal District. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. + 1 CC to Mr.J.Saravana Vel,Advocate,SR.52930 Crl.O.P.No.15867 of 2010 GG(CO) EM/4.8.10 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/