Kerala High Court
Rajmohan Singh Takur vs State Of Kerala on 9 February, 2026
2026:KER:11738
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 20TH MAGHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 777 OF 2023
CRIME NO.657/2017 OF KAZHAKKUTTOM POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC
NO.1243 OF 2019 OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT, ATTINGAL
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
RAJMOHAN SINGH TAKUR
AGED 33 YEARS
HOUSE NO. 20-2-107, INDIRA NAGAR COLONY, PALONCHA
VILLAGE, KHAMMAM DISTRICT, TELENGANA, PIN - 507115
BY ADV SRI.M.R.SARIN
RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 XXX
BY ADVS.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SMT.SNEHA JOY
OTHER PRESENT:
PP- BINDU O.V
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 09.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:11738
CRL.M.C.NO.777 OF 2023
2
ORDER
Dated this the 9th day of February, 2026 The petitioner who is the sole accused in S.C.No.1243/2019 on the file of the Fast Track Special Court, Attingal, arising out of Crime No.657/2017 of Kazhakkuttom police station, filed this Crl.M.C. under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying for quashing all further proceedings against him. The offences alleged against the petitioner is under Sections 342, 376, 313 of IPC.
2. The prosecution case is that the accused with the intention to satisfy his sexual lust, after promising to marry the defacto complainant committed rape upon her on 16.12.2016 at about 11.30 p.m., at his residence near Saji Hospital, Kazhkkuttom, after confining her in the said residence. It is also alleged that thereafter he repeatedly committed rape upon her on several subsequent days and when she became pregnant, he aborted the pregnancy by giving pills to her and thereby he is alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, now the 2026:KER:11738 CRL.M.C.NO.777 OF 2023 3 entire dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant was settled and therefore, he prayed for quashing all further proceedings against the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant also submitted that the dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant was settled and therefore, he also prayed for quashing further proceedings against the petitioner. The 2 nd respondent/defacto complainant also filed an affidavit endorsing the factum of settlement.
5. Though the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, he submitted that the defacto complainant had already given signed statement to the SHO in tune with the averments in the affidavit filed by her before this Court.
6. Though in the FI Statement it is alleged that the first instance of physical relationship between them was not a consensual one, it can be seen that on the relevant day at about 11.30 p.m., the petitioner went to her residence from where she accompanied him in his motorcycle to 2026:KER:11738 CRL.M.C.NO.777 OF 2023 4 his place of residence and the alleged incident occurred during that night, at the residence of the petitioner. It is revealed that, thereafter also they had physical relationship with each other on several days. Therefore, primafacie it is revealed that, the relationship between them was a consensual one. The above conclusion is fortified by the fact that now the defacto complainant filed an affidavit stating that she has no intention to proceed with the case. In the above circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings against the petitioner and as such this Crl.M.C. is liable to be allowed.
In the result, this Crl. M.C is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner in S.C.No.1243/2019 on the file of the Fast Track Special Court, Attingal, arising out of Crime No.657/2017 of Kazhakkuttom police station, stands quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Sd/-
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR,
Pvv JUDGE