MANU C. MANIKANTAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein are accused nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.867/2023 of Kannapuram Police Station, Kannur. The offences alleged are under Sec. 376, 376(2)(l), 376(2) (n), 417 and 420, read with Sec. 34 of the Penal Code. The petitioners seek quashment of the crime and all further proceedings therein, including the Final Report, on the premise that the matter has been settled by and between the petitioners and the defacto complainant/3 rd respondent. It is also the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations in the Final Report, taken on its face value, will not constitute the offences alleged.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners; learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent/defacto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was an intimate love affair between the 1 st petitioner and the 3 rd respondent for a period of more than two years and that their marriage was about tobe solemnized, at which point of time, there arose a difference of opinion between the families. The physical relationship between the 1st petitioner and the 3rd respondent was nothing, but consensual. It is a misconception to allege that the consent was vitiated by a promise to marry extended by the 1st petitioner. Such contention is squarely in the teeth of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and another [(2019) 9 SCC 608]. Above all, learned counsel would submit that the issue has been settled by and between the petitioners and the 3rd respondent in the mediation conducted pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, when the petitioners sought pre-arrest bail. A sum of Rs.4.5 lakhs was given by the petitioners to the 3rd respondent, as per the terms of the mediation settlement. An affidavit has been sworn to by the 3rd respondent indicating the factum of settlement and also acknowledging the receipt of the sum above referred. Moreover, a statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer pursuant to the direction of this Court, which would also vouch the factum of settlement and also receipt of the money. In such circumstances, no profitable purpose is going to be served by continuing the prosecution, except an abuse of process of Court, is the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. On such premise, petitioners seek, the crime and all further proceedings thereto to be quashed.