AISWARYA Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the de facto complainant and victim in Crime No. 641/2014 of the Mueseum Police Station which was originally registered as Crime No. 555/2014 of Petta Police Station. Her case is that on the basis of the information furnished by her, above crime was registered against the 3rd respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 67B(e) of the Information Technology Act and Section 3(a) and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act. Now, the case of the petitioner is that she do not want to proceed with the above case since she happened to give such information because of her frustration due to the stand taken by the 3rd respondent, when she expressed her desire to have love and company of the 3rd respondent as her future life partner. Therefore, she preferred this petition with a prayer to quash Annexure A1 (Crime No. 641/2014 of Mueseum Police Station).

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that a crime was registered at the instance of the petitioner, who is a lady, and she preferred the above complaint due to her immature approach. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after registering the above crime when the petitioner was taken to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, she deposed before the said Magistrate that she do not want to proceed with the criminal case. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the parents of the petitioner came to know about the filing of the criminal case and procedure only when the police came to their house and that the parents also are not interested in proceeding with the criminal case considering the future of the petitioner/victim.