Kerala High Court
Rinchu P vs State Of Kerala on 29 July, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/4TH PHALGUNA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 7760 of 2016 ()
---------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CP 145/2011 of J.M.F.C.-I, KOLLAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 351/2012 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT,
KOLLAM
CRIME NO. 302/2009 OF KUNDARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
PETITIONER(S)/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
---------------------------------
RINCHU P.,
AGED 27 YEARS, W/O.PRAJEESH RAJ,
'VINOD BHAVAN', LAKKIDI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT
BY ADVS.SRI.ALAN PAPALI
SRI.J.VIMAL
SRI.ANTONY ROBERT DIAS
RESPONDENT(S)/STAET & 1ST ACCUSED:
----------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
(SI OF POLICE, KUNDARA POLICE STATION,
CRIME NO. 302/2009 OF KUNDARA POLICE STATION),
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 31
2. AVINASH CHACKO
S/O.CHACKO KOSHY, 35 YEARS,
CHERUKARA PUTHANVEEDU, PAZHANGALAM, NALLILA PO,
KOLLAM DISTRICT 691515
R2 BY ADV. SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.11.2016, THE COURT ON 23.02.2017 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 7760 of 2016 ()
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 302/2009
DATED 29.07.2011 FILED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
COURT I, KOLLAM
ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE PETITIONER DATED
30.07.2016
ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE PETITIONER'S
MOTHER PRASANNAKUMARI, W/O.SURESH BABU DATED 30.07.2016
ANNEXURE IV TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE PETITIONER'S
FATHER SURESH BABU, S/O.SOMARAJAN DATED 30.07.2016
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL
-----------------------
/TRUE COPY/
P. A. TO JUDGE
Pn
SUNIL THOMAS, J.
-------------------------------------------
Crl. M. C. No. 7760 of 2016
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2017
O R D E R
The petitioner is the defacto complainant in Crime No.302/2009 of Kundara Police Staation, Kollam for offences punishable under Sections 344, 365, 366, 376, 383, 427, 506(i) read with Section 34 of IPC. The allegation of the prosecution was that, the 1st accused was conducting a Consultancy firm who got acquaintance with the petitioner herein. He allegedly offered to get her admission in an institution and her certificates were obtained. Since the admission was not procured, she sought for return of the documents and under the guise of returning it, the petitioner was called to a place and she was allegedly raped by the accused. Thereafter, threatening that he had taken her photographs, he allegedly took her to various places and committed rape of her. Ultimately, both were located at Andamans and were brought back by the Kundara Police on 28.03.2009. Complaint was laid and thereafter the above crime was registered. After investigation, final report was filed and the matter is now pending as S.C. No.351/2012 of Assistant Sessions court, Kollam.
2. The petitioner has now preferred this Crl.M.C. on a Crl. M. C. No. 7760 of 2016 2 premise that, she had voluntarily eloped with the 1st accused, had moved to various places and that she does not propose to pursue the matter. It was stated that she got married on 13.04.2014 and is leading a happy married life. She has asserted that, she has no complaint against the accused and she does not propose to pursue the matter. A detailed affidavit has been filed by the defacto complainant as Annexure II, supported by the affidavits filed by her parents as Annexures III and IV. In the affidavit, she had specifically stated that, she, of her own,it is recorded that left the house stating that she was going to the College at Thirunelveli and had eloped with the accused. Thereafter, she was taken back and she reported to the Police that she had voluntarily left with the accused based on which she was released. Subsequently, on the advice and instructions of her parents, she had lodged the complaint alleging that she was forcefully taken to various places and rape was committed. She has now reiterated that, since she is now leading a peaceful married life, she does not propose to pursue the matter. This is reiterated by the parents also in their affidavits. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/accused also reiterated that, he has no objection in quashing the proceedings since both are leading separate married life. He also reiterated Crl. M. C. No. 7760 of 2016 3 that the victim had voluntarily eloped with him. Learned counsel further pointed out that, the victim had completed 18 years of age at that point of time as is evident from the Medical Certificate coupled with the various other materials available on record. It appears that, she was taken to a Doctor on 29.03.2009 and her medical examination was conducted. The wound certificate is produced as Annexure 1(26). In that wound certificate it is recorded that she has specifically stated that, she was in love with the accused and had eloped with him on 07.03.2009. She returned on 28.03.2009 and during the interregnum had physical relationship with him. In her 161 Cr.P.C. statement given to the Police on 01.04.2009 she had given the details. However, she has referred in her statement seen at Annexure 1 page 62 that, when she was intercepted by the Police she had revealed that she had voluntarily eloped with the accused. However, in her subsequent statement to the Magistrate preceding the lodging of the complaint, she had specifically narrated a totally different story of rape. There are indications on record that they had moved to different places and had stayed at different places. Viewed from this angle and the fact that, initially the defacto complainant had a case that she had voluntarily left with the accused and had Crl. M. C. No. 7760 of 2016 4 voluntary physical relationship, her subsequent version becomes shaky. Coupled with this fact, the petitioner herein has now come forward reiterating the initial stand that she had voluntarily left with the accused and that she does not propose to pursue the matter, I feel that a successful prosecution on the basis of this material is highly doubtful. However, the settled law also states that when a person moves with another person and has voluntary physical relationship on the basis of a promise for future marriage, may not fall within the ambit of Section 376 IPC.
3. In the above circumstance and since the defacto complainant has now come forward stating that she does not propose to pursue the matter, a successful prosecution is highly improbable. In the above circumstance, to give quietus to the entire dispute between the parties and to permit both parties to have a peaceful life, I am inclined to quash the entire proceedings.
In the result, Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings in S.C. No.351/2012 of Assistant Sessions court, Kollam stand quashed.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.
Pn