SURESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These proceedings arise from Crime No.745/2017 of Ernakulam Town South Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 376, 379, 420 and 323 of IPC. The accused is a Constable in CISF Vigilance Wing in Cochin Shipyard, wherein the de facto complainant was working as a last grade employee, since 2012. She is a widow. A complaint was laid by her on 17.05.2017 alleging that, while she was employed, the petitioner herein developed a close intimacy with her. The petitioner herein offered to marry her. Accordingly, he took a building on rent and they started living together as husband and wife. It was claimed that, he was a bachelor. It is alleged by the de facto complainant that, during the course of their relationship, about one and half lakhs of rupees were taken by the petitioner herein from her along with six sovereigns gold. Whenever, she insisted for marriage, he used to delay it for one reason or other. On 03.04.2017, he left to his native place on an assurance to return immediately. Since he did not return, she continued to reside in the rented building for two more weeks and thereafter shifted to her own house. It was later understood that, the accused had come to the house and taken away all his dress and other belongings. Hence, the complaint was laid alleging that the petitioner herein had committed rape of her on the basis of a false promise to marry.

(2.) The petitioner contended that he has been falsely implicated and that the allegation of the de facto complainant that the petitioner herein had given a false promise to marry and had physical relationship with her is absolutely false. It was contended that, if there was any relationship between the parties, even from the admitted materials it only disclose a consensual physical relationship. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pending the proceedings the dispute between the parties have been amicably settled to the satisfaction of the 2nd respondent and that the proceedings will not survive.

(3.) Crl.M.C. is filed to quash the proceedings on the strength of a settlement alleged to have been arrived at between the parties evidenced by Annexure A2. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent de facto complainant appeared and submitted that she has subscribed to Annexure A2 agreement and that she has no surviving grievance. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an affidavit has been affirmed on 28.09.2017 which is produced along with the Crl.M.C.