IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3502 of 2009() ----------------------------------- CRIME NO.155/2006 OF ALATHUR POLICE STATION. ........ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- RAJESH,S/O.RAJAN, AGED 26 YEARS,KUDILPADAM,CHUNDAKAD, KAVILPADAM,ALATHUR. BY ADVS.MR.JOHNSON P.JOHN MR.BABY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALATHUR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. ANITHA,D/O.SUNDHARAN, AGED 19 YEARS,ERAPAKKAL VEEDU, KODILPADAM,CHUNDAKAD,KAVASERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.S.U.NAZAR R3 BY ADV.MR.RAJU SEBASTIAN VADAKKEKKARA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO. 3502 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 16th November 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused and second respondent the prosecutrix in crime No.155/2006 of Alathur police station registered for the offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code. Case was registered on Annexure-I FIR after recording first information statement of the prosecutrix. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the FIR contending that in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Third respondent appeared through a counsel and filed Crl.M.A.6015/2009 seeking permission to compound the offence stating that petitioner as well as third respondent are now married separately and third respondent had given birth to a child and is leading a peaceful life and in such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the Crmc 3502/09 2 case as it would only add further trauma to the third respondent. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner as well as third respondent were married separately and they have got their own family and the incident occurred in 2006 and much water has flown and now the relationship is cordial and when third respondent has no grievance as against the petitioner and does not want to continue the proceedings on the ground that it would cause problem for her marital life, this court has to quash the proceedings as sought for. 4. As declared by the Apex court in Manoj Sharma v. State (2008 (4) KLT 417 (SC)) fact that a liberal exercise of the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure was advanced in B.S.Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another (2003(4) SCC 675) and Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19 (SC), it does not mean that all non compoundable offences are to be quashed, invoking Crmc 3502/09 3 the extra ordinary inherent power of this court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure based on settlement between the parties. If the offence is not purely personal, as against the de facto complainant and the injured, it is not in the interest of administration of criminal justice to quash the proceedings accepting the settlement. 5. That exactly is the case herein. Allegation against petitioner is that he committed rape on third respondent. Neither the fact that petitioner got married later nor third respondent got married later are not sufficient ground to quash the proceedings. Offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code cannot be termed a purely a personal offence as against the prosecutrix. It is an offence committed against the very society, which cannot be ignored. Fact that consequent to the settlement whether third respondent would depose against the petitioner and in that event whether there could be a successful prosecution are not matters to be weighed with this court, while considering the question whether extra ordinary inherent power is to Crmc 3502/09 4 be exercised to quash an offence against the society. I find that an offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code cannot be quashed invoking extra ordinary power of this court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.