SACHU P CHANDRAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been arrayed as the sole accused in the impugned Annexure-A3 FIR in Crime No.611/2018 of Kannamaly Police Station, Ernakulam, which was registered on 13.07.2018, for offences punishable under Secs.376, 312 & 420 of the IPC on the basis of the First Information Statement/complaint of the 2nd respondent/lady defacto complainant/victim. Later, the said crime was transferred to Thripunithura Hill Palace Police Station, wherein it was re-numbered as Crime No.1185/2018. Subsequently, the police after due investigation has filed the impugned Annexure-A1 final report/charge sheet in the said Crime No.1185/2018 of Thripunithura Hill Palace Police Station, which has now led to the pendency of committal proceedings, C.P.No.5/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thripunithura. The petitioner seeks quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings mainly on the ground that even going by admitted allegations of the 2nd respondent/lady defacto complainant in her First Information Statement, etc., it can be seen that the alleged sexual relationship has happened only on the basis of consent between the parties and that even according to her, the parties were in love for about 10 years and that they had into sexual relationship on quite a few occasions and it is thereafter, that the petitioner had promised her that he would marry her and that later he had breached his promise, etc.

(2.) Heard Sri.S.Nirmal Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused, Smt.Priya Shanavas, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for 1st respondent-State and Sri.Sujith Ajayan, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/lady defacto complainant.

(3.) The gist of the prosecution case is that the petitioner/accused and the 2nd respondent/lady defacto complainant were working under the same employer, viz., S.D.Lifestyle Glam Saloon and Spa at Vyttila, Ernakulam and that they were in love for about 10 years and that that parties had entered into sexual relationship and that later, the petitioner had promised her that he would marry her and that he had also persuaded her to conduct medical termination of the pregnancy, which arose out of the said sexual relationship, etc. and that therefore, the petitioner has committed the abovesaid offences. The 2nd respondent has now filed Annexure-A2 affidavit dated 28.02.2019 stating that the said complaint was made by her out of the said misunderstandings and that the parties had solved the dispute and that she is no longer interested to pursue the impugned criminal proceedings and that he has no objection in quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings.