Posted On by &filed under High Court, Kerala High Court.


Kerala High Court
Raman vs State Of Kerala on 17 December, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 4463 of 2010()


1. RAMAN, AGED 39 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. ANANDA, AGED 44 YEARS,
3. CHOMA, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.KARIYA

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED
                       ...       Respondent

2. K.USHA, D/O.CHUKRA,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :17/12/2010

 O R D E R
            M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

            ---------------------------------------------
            CRL.M.C.NO.4463 OF 2010
            ---------------------------------------------
            Dated 17th December, 2010


                           O R D E R

Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in

S.C.101/2004 on the file of Additional

Sessions Judge (Adhoc-III), Kasargod, taken

cognizance for the offences under Sections

376, 116,312, 448 and 506(ii) read with

Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Prosecution

case is that four months earlier to 22/7/1999,

first petitioner went to house No.MP.IV/649 of

Kollam Harijan Colony where second respondent

was residing and committed rape on her. On

22/7/1999 first petitioner along with his

brothers, the second petitioner and deceased

third accused, criminally trespassed into her

house and abetted second respondent to undergo

abortion in a hospital and when she declined,

Crmc 4463/10
2

she was threatened that she will be killed and

the accused thereby committed the offences.

Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of

Criminal Procedure contending that entire

disputes with the second respondent were

settled amicably and first petitioner married

the second respondent and three children were

born in that wedlock and in such

circumstances, it is not in the interest of

justice to continue the prosecution.

2. Second respondent appeared through a

counsel and filed an affidavit stating that

subsequent to the registration of the case,

disputes with the accused were settled

amicably, due to intervention of mediators, and

first petitioner married her and they are

residing together and three children were born

in that wedlock and she has no grievance

Crmc 4463/10
3

against the petitioners and six witnesses have

already been examined and the case was

adjourned indefinitely for the examination of

her father and in view of the settlement, she

has no objection for quashing the proceedings.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor on

instructions submitted that first petitioner

married second respondent and they are living

together as husband and wife and subsequent to

the incident two children were born, who are

now aged 7 and 5 years.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners, second respondent and learned

Public Prosecutor were heard.

5. Prosecution case is that first

petitioner committed rape on the second

respondent, four months earlier to 22/7/1999

and when she was pregnant, on 22/7/1999 first

Crmc 4463/10
4

petitioner along with his brothers, the second

petitioner and third accused trespassed into

the house and induced her to undergo abortion

and when she refused they threatened her. The

very fact that second respondent did not raise

any objection for four months, in spite of the

fact that she became pregnant indicates that

sexual intercourse was with her consent.

Subsequent conduct strengthen that fact. More

over, first petitioner later married second

respondent and two children were born

thereafter. In such circumstances, it is not in

the interest of justice to continue the

prosecution, on the peculiar facts and

circumstances of the case. If so, it is not in

the interest of justice to continue the

prosecution. Though this cannot be treated as

a precedent, on the peculiar facts and

Crmc 4463/10
5

circumstances of the case, in the interest of

justice the prosecution is to be quashed.

Petition is allowed. S.C.101/2004 on the

file of Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-III),

Kasargod is quashed.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.

uj.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

66 queries in 0.129 seconds.