HARISH NARAYANAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS proceeding has a chequered career but, parties request to have a happy culmination for it. It is alleged by the petitioner who is accused in Crime No.141 of 2010 of Kottayam West Police Station that he was in love with the second respondent and they engaged in sexual intercourse often. Second respondent apprehended that petitioner might not marry her as promised. Thereon, second respondent (then aged 27 years) preferred a private complaint in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-III (Mobile), Kottayam alleging offence punishable under Sec.376 of the Penal Code. Learned Magistrate forwarded that complaint to the Kottayam West police for investigation under Sec.156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code"). Annexure-A is the complaint and Annexure-B is the FIR registered by the police. Police investigated the case and reached the conclusion that it was with the consent of the second respondent that petitioner had sex with her. Accordingly, police filed Annexure-C, final report reporting the case as mistake of fact. Second respondent then was not satisfied with that report and filed Annexure-D, application seeking further investigation under Sec.173(8) of the Code. Learned Magistrate passed Annexure-G, order directing further investigation, observing that it is not for the investigating officer to decide whether sexual intercourse was with the consent of second respondent. In the light of Annexure-G, order, investigating officer filed a formal petition (Annexure-H) seeking sanction for such further investigation. On that application learned Magistrate passed order on 26.07.2010 sanctioning further investigation. Accordingly further investigation continued.

(2.) IN the meanwhile relationship between petitioner and second respondent became cordial and it is said, they got married on October 21, 2010 and started living together as husband and wife. While so, she conceived from the petitioner. Now both request this court to quash proceedings against petitioner, the latter filing this petition under Sec.482 of the Code and the former supporting it with an affidavit dated January 29, 2011. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.