Crl.MC.No. 4510 of 2018

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **WEDNESDAY,THE 05TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4510 of 2018** **CRIME NO. 1069/2017 OF TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION , PALAKKAD** ## **PETITIONER/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:** **VICTIM ... BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.D.FEROZE SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682 031. 2 DR.P.G.MENON AGED 94 YEARS, S/O.G.V.PANICKER, KRISHNA NIKETHAN,NEAR HEAD POST OFICE, PALAKKAD-678 001. 3 DR.KRISHNA MOHAN AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.DR.P.G.MENON,SASTHARAM, RAMANATHAPURAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 001.** **BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.C.THOMAS (SR.) SRI.NIREESH MATHEW** ## **SRI B JAYASURYA PP** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.MC.No. 4510 of 2018 2 ## **ORDER** This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 2. The respondents 2 and 3 are father and son respectively. Both are in the Medical profession. The 2[nd] respondent is a nonagenarian. They find themselves arrayed as the accused in Crime No.1069 of 2017 of the Palakkad Town North Police Station registered under Section 376 of the IPC. The petitioner herein is the de facto complainant at whose instance, the above Crime was registered. She seeks to quash the entire proceedings. 3. In the complaint filed by the petitioner before the police, she alleged that she was employed in the residential home of the 2[nd] respondent as a housemaid. She worked there for a moderately long period and she used to tend to the ailing wife of the 2[nd] respondent. She stated that about two months after the commencement of her employment, the 2[nd] respondent approached her and made her to believe that he would marry her. She was persuaded to have a sexual relationship with the old man. Similar allegations are raised against the 3[rd] respondent as well. Crl.MC.No. 4510 of 2018 3 4. Immediately, after the registration of the crime, the petitioners herein approached this Court contending that the allegations are frivolous and was merely a counterblast to the registration of Crime No.946 of 2017 of the Palakkad Town Police Station under Section 380 of the IPC. This Court by Annexure-D order granted pre-arrest bail to the respondents 2 and 3. 5. This petition is now filed contending that the Crime was registered under some misunderstanding and that she is not desirous of proceeding with the prosecution proceedings. In the affidavit filed by the petitioner, which is produced as Annexure-E, she asserts that she has no objection in quashing the proceedings. 6. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 submitted that in paragraph No. 14 of Annexure-D order, this Court had observed that the possibility of false implication of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 cannot be ruled out. Necessary directions were also issued to the superior police officers to investigate the manner and the circumstances under which the subject crime was registered against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor has filed a statement of the Dy. Superintendent of Police, DCRB, Palakkad, who is presently Crl.MC.No. 4510 of 2018 4 investigating the crime. In paragraph No.10 of the statement, it is stated that the case had originated pursuant to the registration of the Crime alleging theft against the petitioner herein. He has further stated that on scrutinizing the circumstances which led to the registration of the crimes, it was revealed that the parties were manipulating the legal system in order to protect their private interest. He states that that the matter is being probed and if any lapses or misdemeanor are found, necessary action would be taken against the officer concerned. 8. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the case diary. 9. The legal position with regard to quashing of proceedings on the basis of compromise between the parties is by now well settled. It has been held that the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal Court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case Crl.MC.No. 4510 of 2018 5 and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the Court will have to give due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. It is also settled that heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., cannot quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. The directions of the Apex Court in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab** [(2012) 10 SCC 303] and in **Narinder singh v. State of Punjab** [(2014) 6 SCC 466] serve as guiding lights. 10. Insofar as the offence of rape is concerned, there cannot be any doubt that the same cannot be settled on the strength of a compromise arrived at between the victim and the accused. The Apex Court in **State of M.P. v. Madan Lal** [2015 (7) SCC 681], relying on the decision in **Shimbhu and Another v. State of Haryana** [2014 (13) SCC 318] has clearly reminded the Courts that rape is a noncompoundable offence and it is an offence against the society and is not a matter to be left for the parties to compromise and settle. This was because of the fact that the Court cannot always be assured that the consent given by the victim in compromising the case is a genuine consent. There is every chance that the victim might have been Crl.MC.No. 4510 of 2018 6 pressurized by the convicts or the trauma undergone by her all the years might have compelled her to opt for a compromise. In such cases, the accused may use all his influence to pressurize the victim for a compromise. It was taking note of this aspect that it was held that it would not be safe in considering the compromise arrived at between the parties in rape cases. 11. However, in the instant case, the facts are entirely different. The petitioner was a housemaid in the house of 2[nd] respondent, who after being accused of theft has levelled serious allegation of rape against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. This Court had granted anticipatory bail to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 after doubting the very prosecution case. Some observations were also made against the investigating officer. It appears that those matters are being probed independently. Insofar as the instant case is concerned, the affidavit filed by the victim would clearly show that there is no truth in the accusation. I am of the considered view that this is a fit case in which this Court will be well justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A Crl.MC.No. 4510 of 2018 7 FIR and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in Crime No. 1069 of 2017 of Town North Police Station, Palakkad will stand quashed. **SD/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **JUDGE** IAP **//TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE** Crl.MC.No. 4510 of 2018 8 ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** |**ANNEXURE-A.**|**CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME**| |---|---| ||**NO.1069/2017 OF TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION,**| ||**PALAKKAD.**| |**ANNEXURE-B.**|**CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FI STATEMENT GIVEN BY**| ||**THE PETITIONER/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT BEFORE**| ||**THE POLICE DATED 2/10/2017.**| |**ANNEXURE-C.**|**A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT**| ||**ALONG WITH ANNEXURES FILED BY THE**| ||**PETITIONER HEREIN IN BA 7123/2017 BEFORE**| ||**THIS COURT.**| |**ANNEXURE-D.**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7/11/2017**| ||**IN BA NO.7123/2017 PASSED BY THIS**| ||**HONOURABLE COURT.**| |**ANNEXURE-E.**|**NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE PETITIONER**|