VIPIN KUMAR @ ACHU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ' Cr.P.C ') to quash Annexure-1 FIR. The offences allegedly involved in the case are those punishable under Section 376(i) IPC and Section 3(a) r/w Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO Act').

(2.) The facts of the case are that a girl named "Deepthi" was found missing on 11.02.2016. A complaint was lodged by her father before the Nemom Police Station. Based on the complaint, Crime No.200/2016 was registered by Nemom Police under Section 57 of the Kerala Police Act. The Police traced out the girl along with 5 of her girl classmates from Mahila Mandiram, Poojapura, Thiruvananthapuram. She had given a statement to the Police wherein, it was stated that she was in love affair with her schoolmate and when her parents came to know about the relationship, she left her home alongwith her friends. After tracing out, herself and her friends were produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (Temporary), Neyyattinkara. She has stated to the Magistrate that since her love affair with one of her classmates was informed to her parents, she was restrained from attending the school. She was allowed to attend the examination on 11.02.2016 and after the examination, they went to a bakery to have ice cream. While being there, they were found by their teachers, and when they reached school late, they were scolded by the teachers and headmistress. The teachers told them that the matter would be informed to their parents and therefore all of them went to Mahila Mandiram to stay there to avoid further consequences. It was also stated that they had never entered into physical relationships with anyone. Thereafter, all of them were taken to Government Hospital at Thycaud for medical examination and it was disclosed that some of them had been sexually assaulted.

(3.) When the case is taken up for hearing this day, attention of this Court was drawn by the learned counsel, to an affidavit obtained from the father of the victim girl, and produced alongwith the petition on hand, wherein her father, who is the additional 3rd respondent has stated that he had approached the Police to set the law in motion without fully understanding the true facts of the case and lateron informed that his daughter, Deepthi had not been sexually abused by the petitioner and the statement originally made by her was false. It is also stated that the petitioner is the son of his sister and he has no grievance against him. It is further stated that himself and his daughter do not intend to continue with the prosecution, since the matter was amicably settled.