SHAFEEK Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein stand arrayed as the sole accused in Crime No.684/2014 of Aryanad Police Station, now pending as SC.No.855/2015 on the files of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram for offences punishable under sections 363 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(b) read with section 4 and 7 read with section 8 of Protection of Children's from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

(2.) It was alleged by the prosecution that on 2.6.2014 at 10.am, the accused with an intention to commit sexual assault on the daughter of the defacto complainant kidnapped her, took her on a motor cycle, moved around at various places and left her back on 4.6.2014. Complaint was laid by the defacto complainant since the victim was missing. Crime was registered and in the course of investigation, the daughter was located. After investigation, final report was filed and the matter is now pending as SC.No.855/2015 on the files of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram.

(3.) The petitioner has approached this court seeking a relief under section 482 Cr.P.C,, 1973 on a premise that the petitioner was in love with the victim and that they have moved around at various places with the free consent of the victim. It was stated that there was no physical relationship between the parties. It was also contended that he has not committed any offence punishable under the provisions of POCSO Act and the victim had voluntarily accompanied him. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to an affidavit affirmed by the second respondent, which is produced as Annexure-8. It discloses that the victim was in love with the petitioner herein and after the registration of the crime, they got married on 28.7.2015 under the Special Marriage Act. It is further stated that the child is born in the matrimonial relationship. They are leading a good family life. It was also asserted by her that during their travel from 2.6.2014 to 4.6.2014, they never stayed together at any place and were moving around. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the second and third respondents relied on Annexure-6, which is the certificate of marriage issued to the petitioner herein and the contesting respondent No.3. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant also asserted that she has no objection in quashing the proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the second respondent invited my attention to Annexure-4, which is the statement of the victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 It reveals that the victim had specifically averred that they did not have any physical relationship. The medical certificate produced as Annexure-3 also indicates that they have travelled together to different places and returned. They did not have any physical relationship. It also shows that there was no medical evidence to support the allegations of the physical relationship.