IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 25TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3289 of 2008() ------------------------- PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- JOHNSON, S/O. ANTHONY, MADANI HOUSE, KUTTIKKAD, CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.K.S.SAIRA SRI.A.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. BINDU, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O. CHERUKANDAN, KARICHAYIL VEEDU, MULLASSERY DESOM, KULLASSERY VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 3289 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of September, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner, against whom a crime has been registered alleging offences punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has come before this Court now along with the defacto complainant, a woman aged about 30 years, with a request that the crime registered against the petitioner may be quashed invoking the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner belongs to the Christian community and the second respondent belongs to Scheduled Caste community. 2. The crux of the allegations raised in the F.I. Statement is that there was intimacy and pre-marital sexual intercourses between the second respondent and the petitioner herein. They lived as husband and wife. She became pregnant. The pregnancy was aborted. Later, the petitioner started absconding. He did not stand by his commitment to marry the second Crl.M.C.No. 3289 of 2008 2 respondent. Later, it was revealed that he had already been married. Long after the alleged forcible sexual intercourse and the aborting of the pregnancy, a complaint was filed before the police in February, 2007 and it is on the basis of such complaint that the F.I.R. has been registered. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations raised in the F.I.R. even if accepted in toto do not reveal any offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. or under Section 3(1) (xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. A plain reading of the averments in the F.I.R. must convince this court that it was a case of voluntary sexual intercourses between two adult individuals of opposite sex. In these circumstances the very registration of the crime is not justified, contends the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in any view of the matter the second respondent has now realised her folly and has settled the disputes with the petitioner. She has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner. She has entered appearance through counsel to confirm that the matter has been settled Crl.M.C.No. 3289 of 2008 3 between the parties and that she has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner. A joint affidavit has been filed by the petitioner and the second respondent duly attested by their counsel to confirm that the disputes have been settled and the second respondent has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner. 5. I am satisfied from the totality of circumstances that there has been a voluntary and genuine settlement and composition of the offences by the defacto complainant. It is unnecessary to go into the question whether the allegations reveal any offence and whether on that reason the F.I.R. deserves to be quashed. It is evident that the disputes have been settled between the parties and the counsel in these circumstances rely on the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19). 6. Notice was given to the learned Prosecutor, who, after taking instructions, submits that the Investigator is satisfied that there has been a bonafide and genuine settlement of the disputes between the Crl.M.C.No. 3289 of 2008 4 parties and the State has no objection against quashing of the proceedings. 7. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am persuaded to agree that the request can be accepted and the crime registered and all consequent proceedings against the petitioner can be quashed invoking the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as enabled by the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot (supra). 8. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed. b) Crime No. 49 of 2007 of Pavaratty police station registered against the petitioner on the basis of the complaint filed by the second respondent herein and all further proceedings taken in pursuance of the said crime is hereby quashed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm Crl.M.C.No. 3289 of 2008 5 R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 3289 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of August, 2008 O R D E R The prayer us to quash a crime registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 376 I.P.C. And Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on the ground that the petitioner/accused and the second respondent/complainant have harmoniously settled their disputes. Invocation of the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as enabled by the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19) is requested . The victim/R2 has not entered appearance. Counsel for the petitioner undertakes to ensure that the second respondent enters appearance and files a joint statement/affidavit to confirm the settlement and Crl.M.C.No. 3289 of 2008 6 composition of the offences. 2. Notice given. Learned Prosecutor shall take instructions as to whether the State has any objection against the invocation of the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot (supra). Call on 4.9.2008. (R. BASANT) Judge tm