ABEY THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the accused in Crime No. 163/2011 of Thirunelli Police Station, Wayanad District registered for offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. After investigation, the police filed the impugned Annexure-A Final Report/Charge Sheet in the aforementioned crime which led to the institution of S.C. No. 177/2012 on the file of the Sessions Court, Kalpetta, Wayanad District. In the impugned FIR as well as the in the impugned Final Report/Charge Sheet it is clearly stated that the allegations involving forced sexual intercourse has taken place more than 10 years prior to the date of registration of the FIR on 14.6.2011 and that the said alleged incident of forced sexual intercourse said to have been committed by the petitioner on the victim has occurred in Gonikuppa Village in Kudaku situated in the State of Karnataka. It is further clearly sated in the materials produced along with impugned Annexure-A Final Report/Charge Sheet that the victim has not given any complaint in this regard and that the complaint was made by the victim's mother in a programme meant for promoting the interest of 'Unwed Mothers' in Wayanad, stating that the victim, who is her daughter, was taken for agricultural related work in Gonikuppa Village in Kudaku situated in the State of Karnataka to work in the Ginger fields of the accused and that about 10 years prior to the date of submission of the FIS/FIR on 14.6.2011, the said incident of rape has taken place in Gonikuppa Village in Kudaku in the State of Karnataka. It is further alleged that the victim was aged 14 years at the time of commission of offence. It is further stated that both the victim and the accused were unmarried when the incident alleged to have been occurred and later the victim is married and the accused is also married and that both are leading peaceful life with their respective families. It is clearly stated in the materials produced along with the impugned Annexure-A Final Report/Charge Sheet that it is stated by the 3rd respondent (victim) as evident from Annexure-A(8) (page 11 of paper book in this case) that the victim is married and that the complaint regarding the forced sexual intercourse on her was given by her mother to the police and that she has not given any such complaint and that she is not prepared to undergo any DNA test to find out the paternity of the child in question and that she had made it clear, right from the start, that she is not prepared for any scientific test to find out the paternity of the child as she is married to another person and that in such circumstances to undergo such test would detrimentally affect her present family life and police may not trouble her in this regard. These are the statement, given by the 3rd respondent (victim) to the police. This is again reiterated by her in Annexure-A(7) (page 10 of paper book).

(2.) It is further stated that the disputes have been settled between the parties and the 2nd respondent ( de facto complaint, who is the victim's mother) and the 3rd respondent (victim, who is the daughter of the de facto complainant) have sworn to separate affidavits dated 11.8.2014 produced as Annexures-B & C in this Crl.M.C. In Annexure-C affidavit, the 3rd respondent (victim) has reiterated her earlier statements given to the police as made out in the impugned Annexure-A Final Report/Charge Sheet that the complaint in question regarding rape was not given with the consent or knowledge of the 3rd respondent and that she is not interested to pursue the criminal proceedings as she is now settled in her married life and that any further continuation of the impugned proceedings would disturb the peaceful and cordial continuation of her family life etc. and that she has no objection in the quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings. The 2nd respondent- de facto complainant has also taken a similar stand as can be seen from Annexure-B affidavit wherein she has stated that the 3rd respondent, who is her daughter, is now continuing her family life and that she is not interested to continue the impugned criminal proceedings. It is further made clear in Annexure-B affidavit by the 2nd respondent that she had given the complaint on 14.6.2011 in the community hall of the Kattikulam Grama Panchayath wherein an Adalat Programme for unwed mothers was conducted and it is in this circumstance, she had given the complaint on 14.6.2011 which led to the registration of the impugned Crime No. 163/2011 of Thirunelli Police Station, Wayanad District etc. It is in the light of these facts and circumstances that the petitioner filed the present Crl.M.C with the prayer to quash the impugned Annexure-A Final Report/Charge Sheet in the impugned Crime No. 163/2011 of Thirunelli Police Station, Wayanad District which has led to the institution of S.C. No. 177/2012 on the file of the Sessions Court, Kalpetta and all further proceedings arising therefrom.

(3.) Heard Sri. Jeswin P. Varghese, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent and Sri. Syleswaran Nair, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 & 3.