IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2009 / 9TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 4046 of 2008(C) ------------------------------------ SC.68/2007 of IVth ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-II) THODUPUZHA ........................................................ PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED -------------------------------------- 1. REJI @ JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH, AGED 40 YEARS, MEMANA HOUSE, ARIKKUZHA.P.O, MANAKKADU, THODUPUZHA, IDDUKI DISTRICT. 2. SUNNY C. JACOB, S/O. CHACKO, AGED 36 YEARS, CHETHAMKODU HOUSE, ARIKKUZHA.P.O, MANAKKADU, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR SMT.M.N.MAYA RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. OMANA, W/O. LATE PRABHAKARAN, AGED 48 YEARS, KADAVANATHU HOUSE, ARIKKUZHA.P.O, MANAKKADU, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. RAJANI, D/O. OMANA, AGED 21 YEARS, KADAVANATHU HOUSE, ARIKKUZHA.P.O, MANAKKADU, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.B.VINOD FOR R1. ADV. SRI.P.K.VARGHESE FOR R2&R3 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4046 of 2008 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioners are the accused in S.C.No.68/2007 on the file of IV Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc- II), Thodupuzha. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the case contending that subsequently there was a settlement of all the disputes with respondents 2 and 3, the victim and her mother and in the light of the settlement, the case is to be quashed. Annexures-II and III affidavits of the mother and daughter were also filed. Allegation against the petitioners is that they committed rape on second respondent and thereby committed offence under Section 376(g) of Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and respondents 2 and 3 and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. CRMC 4046/08 2 3. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 was more vehement than the counsel appearing for the petitioners, to get the case quashed. Submission of the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 is that third respondent is now married and is having a child and the fact that she was subjected to rape was not known to her husband and if she is compelled to appear before the Sessions Court, it would be known to the husband and if so, it would adversely affect her family life and therefore, the case is to be quashed. 4. I am not impressed with the submission. That cannot be a consideration for quashing the case. If an offence of this nature is to be quashed, based on the affidavit filed by the victim, it would convey a very wrong message that the victim could be subjected to pressure, threat or inducement, compelling her to agree for a settlement, so that culprits could escape. As declared by the Apex Court in Manoj Sharma v. State CRMC 4046/08 3 (2008 (4) KLT 417), all non compoundable offences cannot be allowed to be quashed by this Court exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Definitely, an offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code is one among the offences, which cannot be quashed based on the settlement, as it is an offence against the very society. In such circumstances, based on the settlement, the case cannot be quashed. Petition is dismissed. 31st July, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv