RAMCHANDRA PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is fourth accused in Crime No. 1064/2008 of Punalur police station, Kollam. He is Sub Registrar of Punalur. On 13/8/2008 Jyothish and Chithira gave notice of their intended marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. It was published in the notice board, as evidenced by Annexure-1 copy of that notice on 4/10/2008. After obtaining a declaration made by the bride groom and bride in the presence of the witnesses, marriage was solemnised and Annexure-2 certificate was issued on the same day. Later on 31/10/2008 along with her parents, Chithira preferred Annexure-3 complaint producing copy of Annexure-5 birth certificate obtained from the Panchayat to show that her date of birth is 31/3/1991 and not as shown in the copy produced earlier. Petitioner directed them to produce the original of Annexure-5 and after verifying the original and getting satisfied that the date of birth is not as stated originally, the marriage under Annexure-4 solemnised earlier was declared invalid on 31/10/2008. Meanwhile, on 26/12/2008 finding that Chithira was missing her father filed a complaint before Punalur police which was registered as crime 1064/2008 evidenced by Annexure-6 FIR. Subsequently under Annexure-7, the boy Jyothish and Annexure-8 his relative Mani and under Annexure-9, the document writer Rajendra Babu were implicated as accused 1 to 3.

(2.) In February 2009 the mother of Chithira had filed a habeas corpus writ petition before this court and by order dated 11/3/2009 the detinue was given to the mother evidenced by Ext. A10 judgment. On 21/3/2009 statement of Chithira was recorded in crime 1064/2008. Annexure-2 statement was produced before the Magistrate. Later under Annexure-13 report dated 27/3/2009 petitioner was implicated as fourth accused on the allegation that he failed to give information which is bound to give and thereby committed offence under Section 202 of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the FIR as against the petitioner contending that the allegation against him do not constitute an offence under Section 202 of Indian Penal Code or any other offence and so it is to be quashed.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.