MOHAN DAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed by the accused in Crime No.129 of 2000 of Kottayi Police station for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 313 of the Indian Penal Code, case being that petitioner, in August, 1997 and thereafter subjected respondent No.2 (defacto complainant) to rape on various occasions, she conceived from the petitioner in the year, 2000 and that her pregnancy was aborted at Santhi Nursing Hospital. Case is now pending before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Palakkad in C.P.No.24 of 2001. In the meantime, petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code") requesting to quash the proceedings against him on the ground that dispute has been settled between petitioner and respondent No.2.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Learned Public Prosecutor also after getting instructions from the officer concerned has submitted that as between petitioner and respondent No.2 there is a settlement of the dispute. It is also submitted that respondent No.2 is married to one Senthil and is residing at Thiruppur.

(3.) NOW the question is whether in the light of Annexures-A2 and A5, case against petitioner could be quashed. No doubt, the Supreme Court has pointed out that when the case is purely personal to and between the parties concerned and there is a settlement between them the High Court could invoke its power under Section 482 of the Code to preserve harmonious relationship between the parties. In the present case, it is true that so far as the allegation of alleged rape is concerned, one may say that it is a matter personal to respondent No.2 and petitioner. But, there is a further charge against the petitioner, under Section 313 of the Penal Code which I am persuaded to think is not a matter personal too and between petitioner and respondent No.2 alone. It involves feticide, ie. Illegal termination of a life in the womb of respondent No.2. That I think, is not a matter which can be squared up between petitioner and respondent No.2 whatever be the stand of former or the latter. I have also gone through the records and find that prosecution has produced records to show the alleged termination of pregnancy at Santhi Nursing Hospital on 11.07.2000 where petitioner is said to have given his consent for the said miscarriage claiming that he is the husband of the lady concerned. I also find that the Investigating Officer has questioned the Medical Officer who caused termination of pregnancy. She has also given statement in the same line. As I stated, miscarriage is a serious offence which affected the life of fetus. That matter cannot be squared, in my confirmed view because the matter has been settled between petitioner and respondent No.2. In the circumstances I am not persuaded to think that compromise entered between petitioner and respondent No.2 should result in quashing the proceedings against petitioner. For the said reasons I decline to grant relief prayed for in this petition. Resultantly this petition is dismissed. But I make it clear that any observation made herein shall not prejudice the trial court in the disposal of the case.