JOSEPH JORDAN COREYA MANAPPURATH HOUSE Vs. STATE OF KERALA REP BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the father of the 2nd respondent, stands arrayed as the accused in Crime No.935/2016 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 376(2) (f) , 354, 354B, 323, 188, 506(ii) of IPC and Section 31 of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Several allegations were made by the daughter, that the father tried to sexually abuse and molest her during the period 2013 January to 2016 April. The petitioner contending that the allegations are absolutely false and filed as a sequel to a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and his wife and that the disputes have been resolved between the parties, has approached this Court.

(2.) The petitioner relied on Annexure A2 affidavit filed by the de facto complainant affirming that she does not propose to pursue the matter. She has stated that the matter is amicably settled out of Court and there is no further surviving grievance. Since the allegations prima facie</i> appeared to be serious, this Court was not inclined to quash the criminal proceedings in the nature of the allegations. However, the 2nd respondent personally appeared before this Court and explained the facts leading to the institution of the complaint. She stated that she is highly educated and she was under excessive mental depression during the relevant period and was misguided by certain persons to file the complaint. She stated that she now realises the seriousness of the allegations made by her. Realising the truth involved and that there is no truth in the allegations raised by her, she proposes to give quietus to the entire dispute. She further asserted that she was living with the petitioner for a long time and they are now living together at Bangalore comfortably. She asserted that she had no bad experience from him. This was recorded by this Court. It appears that the Family bickering have led to this case. She requested that the parties may be referred for mediation to resolve the dispute under the Domestic Violence Act. It was also referred that M.C. No.13/2016 filed by her was pending before the Additional CJM Court, Ernakulam, which was also under process of settlement. Accordingly, the parties, with consent, were referred for mediation. They discussed the matter and seems to have arrived at a settlement evidenced by the memorandum of agreement signed by both sides and counter signed by the respective counsel. They have resolved to abide by the conditions entered into in mediation in M.C. No.13/2016 of Addl. CJM Court, Ernakulam.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that the de facto complainant did not fully co-operate with the investigation and Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement has not been recorded. It was stated that even though she was repeatedly asked to undergo medical examination, she refused to do so. She thereafter filed an affidavit before the investigating agency stating that she does not propose to pursue the matter.