IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2008 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4524 of 2008(C) ------------------------------------- C.P.NO.36/2005 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, VADAKKANCHERY IN CRIME NO.346/2002 OF THE VADAKKANCHERY POLICE STATION. ..................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------- RAJAN, S/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, PALLATH HOUSE, KANJIRASSERY, MULOOR KARA. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ANIL RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SINDHU D/O. DIVAKARAN, AGED 30 YEARS, MELLUTT HOUSE, KANJIRASSERY, MULOOR KARA, THALAPPALLY TALUK. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKKANCHERRY POLICE STATION. 3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI FOR R2, R3 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4524 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of December 2008 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is that he had committed rape on the victim, an adult woman in 1998. In such sexual intercourse, a child was born in 1999. Long later in 2002, a complaint of rape was raised. Investigation was completed and final report was filed by the police. The matter is now pending as C.P.No.36/05 before the learned J.F.C.M, Vadakkanchery. At this stage, the petitioner/accused and the 1st respondent/victim have come before this court to apprise this court of the fact that the parties have settled their disputes. A joint application for composition is filed duly signed by the contestants and countersigned by their respective counsel. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and respondent/victim pray, the learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the said prayer and I am satisfied that this is an eminently fit case where the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 AIR SCW 2287], Crl.M.C.No.4524/08 2 Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2008 (3) KLT 769(SC)] and Manoj Sharma v. State [2008(4)KLT 417 SC] can safely be invoked to bring to premature termination the unnecessary and irrelevant prosecution against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is transparently evident from the totality of circumstances that the alleged sexual intercourse does not amount to a rape and in view of the settlement between the parties, it is totally unnecessary to proceed further with the matter. 3. I am satisfied that the prayer in this Crl.M.C can be allowed. 4. In the result, a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed. b) C.P.No.36/05 pending before the learned J.F.C.M, Vadakkanchery in which the petitioner is the accused and the de facto complainant/1st respondent is the victim is hereby quashed. c) Needless to say, the proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C, if any, pending against the petitioner and his sureties shall be disposed of by the learned Magistrate, in accordance with law. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.4524/08 3 Crl.M.C.No.4524/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008