IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2011 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3965 of 2011() ---------------------- SC.172/2010 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-III), KASARGOD .................... PETITIONER / ACCUSED : -------------------------------------- P.A.IBRAHIM, S/O.ERMU, AGED 32 YEARS, PULIKOOR HOUSE, SHIRUBAGILU VILLAGE, KASARGOD BY ADV. SRI.I.V.PRAMOD RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT : ------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. MUMTHAZ D/O.MOIDEEN KUNHI, AGED 23 YEARS, PULIKOOR HOUSE, SHIRIBAGILU, KASARGOD. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAJESH VIJAYAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.ANIL KUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- Crl.MC.No. 3965 of 2011() APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS : ANNEXURE A1:- CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.749/07 OF KASARGOD POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2:- ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SHWON BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD 24/10/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.3965 of 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of December 2011 O R D E R Petitoner is the accused in S.C.No.172/2010 on the file of Addl. Sessions Court, Adhoc-II, Kasaragod. The offences alleged against him are under Secs.376, 417 and 307 IPC. It was alleged that the accused attempted to kill his wife by pushing her down into a well having no parapet wall. It was also alleged that she was raped earlier. The de facto complainant (R2) is represented in this Court by her counsel. It is submitted by both sides that subsequently the accused married the 2nd respondent and they are living happily in the very same house and a child was born to them in that wedlock. As such, it is submitted that if the case is proceeded with that will disrupt their marital relationship. It is submitted that now warrant has been issued against the petitioner and it is pending. Because the offences charged against him are under Secs.376, 417 and 307 IPC, the leaned Magistrate or Sessions Judge is not Crl.M.C. No.3965 of 2011 -: 2 :- likely to grant bail to the accused. Hence taking note of all those circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is disposed of in the following lines :- On the next hearing date the petitioner and the 2nd respondent – his wife will appear before the trial court. The statement of the 2nd respondent (de facto complainant) shall be recorded by the court below as far as possible on the same day. But it is made clear that in the light of the settlement arrived at, the petitioner/accused shall not be denied bail. If for any reason the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is not in a position to dispose of the case on the same day, it is just and proper that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge dispose the matter within a reasonable time from that date so that the marital relationship may not be affected. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt