IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 27TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3311 of 2008() ------------------------- SC.562/2006 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT,-I, MAVELIKKARA CRIME NO.290/2004 OF MANNAR POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS: ACCUSED 1 & 2 ------------ 1. MURALIDHARAN.T.M., S/O.DAMODARAN PILLAI 39 YEARS, NIKHIL NIVAS, KUTTAMPERUR MANNAR VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA 2. JOY, S/O.ANTHONY, 49 YEARS XI-A21, MAKKARKARAN VEETTIL, ATTIPILLY KADAVU THEKKUMMURI, NANNIPULAM VILLAGE THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR SRI.C.S.DIAS SRI.AJITH MURALI RESPONDENTS: STATE & COMPLAINANT IN S.C.NO.562/06 ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. SOSAMMA @ JINCY, 23 YEARS D/O.ANNAMMA JOHN, CHARIVUKALAYIL VEEDU SEETHATHODU MURI, URUMBINI, CHITTAR VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.3311 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of September, 2008 ORDER Petitioners are accused 1 and 2, who face indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 420 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations against the petitioners is that they had fraudulently induced the defacto complainant by furnishing a false visa to her and that the 1st accused had committed rape on the defacto complainant. 2. The F.I.R was registered not on the basis of the complaint of the victim, but suo motu by the Investigating Officer, who allegedly came to know that two women were residing in the house of the 1st petitioner. It is thereafter that their statements were recorded and two separate crimes were registered. 3. According to the petitioners the allegations are totally false. At any rate, as against the 2nd petitioner, no allegation of any non compoundable offence is raised. So far as the 1st accused is concerned, there is no merit or Crl.M.C. No.3311 of 2008 2 substance in the charge under Section 376 I.P.C. The defacto complainant, ie. the 2nd respondent herein, an adult woman at the relevant time, has no grievance whatsoever that she has been raped by either accused. The additional 2nd respondent has appeared before this Court personally represented by counsel and has filed a joint statement to confirm that the disputes have been settled and there is no grievance against the petitioners. The case against the 1st accused has already been committed to the Court of Session and the same is pending as S.C.No.562 of 2006 before the Additional Sessions Court, Chengannur. The case against the 2nd accused is still remaining at the committal stage. The same is pending as L.P.No.330 of 2008 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chengannur. 4. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the 2nd respondent has no grievance whatsoever against the petitioners and that pendency of the prosecution is affecting her chance of getting married and settled. Persons coming to marry her are insisting that the Crl.M.C. No.3311 of 2008 3 case must be closed and they should not in any way be put to harassment and embarrassment because of such case. The 2nd respondent has absolutely no grievance against the petitioners and it is her submission that the case has been registered not because she wanted it, but because of some estrange between the local Sub Inspector and the petitioners. In any case, the disputes between the parties having been settled and the 2nd respondent having no intention to prosecute the petitioners, it is prayed that the composition, though the offence is not compoundable, may be accepted and the proceedings against the petitioners may be quashed. The counsel pray that the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 A.I.R SCW 2287] may be pressed into service. The ground realities may be taken into account. The futility of continuing the prosecution may be considered. It may further be noted that there is no issue of public policy or public interests involved. The dispute is one purely between the 2nd respondent and the petitioners. The case Crl.M.C. No.3311 of 2008 4 has come into existence under very exceptional circumstances. Taking all these circumstances into account, the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked, pray the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 5. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor The learned Public Prosecutor does not also oppose the prayer. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that in the peculiar facts of the case, the State also wants to quash the proceedings now. 6. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am persuaded to agree that this is a 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 can be pressed into service to bring about premature termination of the prosecution against the petitioners. Crl.M.C. No.3311 of 2008 5 7. In the result: i) This Crl.M.C is allowed; ii) The proceedings against the petitioners in pursuance of the final report filed against them in Crime 290 of 2004 of Mannar Police Station - S.C.562 of 2006 pending before the Assistant Sessions Court, Chengannur and L.P.No.330 of 2008 (C.P.No.36 of 2005) pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chengannur are hereby quashed; iii) The proceedings, if any, initiated against the petitioners and their sureties under Section 446 Cr.P.C shall be disposed of in accordance with law. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-