M.V. Alias v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** ## **FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942** ## **Crl.MC.No.2662 OF 2020(C)** **CRIME NO.260/2020 OF Museum Police Station , Thiruvananthapuram** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **M.V.ALIAS, AGED 42 YEARS S/O. VARKEY, MANIYELI HOUSE, THURUTHI P.O., KURUPPAMPADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SHRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 VICTIM VICTIM 2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682018.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.M.C. No.2662 of 2020 2 ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C. No.2662 of 2020** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** Dated this the 27[th] day of November, 2020 ## **O R D E R** The prayer in the aforecaptioned Criminal Miscellaneous case filed under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. is as follows : _1. “Quash Annexure A FIR and all further proceedings as against the petitioner in Crime No.260/2020 of Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. To grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the peculiary facts and circumstances of this case.”_ 2. Heard Sri.George Sebastian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/sole accused, Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the R2-State of Kerala and Sri.K.P.Sujesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent-lady defacto complainant. 3. The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in the instant impugned Annexure-A FIR in crime No.260/2020 of Thiruvananthapuram Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram district for offences punishable under Secs. 376 and 420 of the IPC on the basis of the First Information Statement given by the 1[st] respondent-lady defacto complainant on 11.3.2020 in respect of the alleged incidents which happened for the period from 1.3.2018 to December, 2018. 4. The petitioner would contend that the abovesaid impugned criminal proceedings are liable for quashment even if it is broadly assumed Crl.M.C. No.2662 of 2020 3 on the ground that the allegations raised therein by the 1[st] respondent are patently false and factually wrong as can be seen from Annexure-C and Annexure-D set in motion by none other than the 1[st] respondent and further that, even if it is assumed for argument sake that the allegations of sexual incident alleged in Annexure-A FIR is assumed to be broadly correct, then the same would have happened only on the basis of consent and not otherwise and further that, the alleged promise said to have been given by the accused to a married lady that he would marry her and that such an unconscionable promise cannot be the basis to contend that the consent to have sexual relationship was obtained on the basis of misconception of fact as understood under Sec.90 of the IPC. 5. Per contra, Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned senior Government Pleader appearing for the 2[nd] respondent-State and Sri. K.P.Sujesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for 1[st] respondent-lady defacto complainant would urge that the abovesaid contentions of the petitioner are not tenable and that the case is only at the FIR stage and that it cannot now be said that the ingredients of the offence as per Sec.376 of the IPC are not made and that the petition is liable to be rejected by this Court etc. Both sides have made their submissions _in extenso_ on at least on occasions more than one. 6. Before dealing with the facts of the case, it will be pertinent to refer to the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court and various High Crl.M.C. No.2662 of 2020 4 Courts in the matter of distinction of rape as per Sec.376 I.P.C and consensual sexual relationship between the parties. It is by now well established that there is a fine and substantial distinction between rape as understood in Sec.376 of the IPC and consensual sexual relationship between parties and this has been the subject matter of detailed consideration of various judgments of the Apex Court and various High Courts, including this Court. The said issue is the subject matter of a catena of rulings of the Apex Court in decisions as in _**Uday v. State of Karnataka,**_ reported in (2003) 4 SCC 46 and _**Deelip Singh @ Dilip Kumar v. State of Bihar,**_ reported in (2005) 1 SCC 88, where it has been held that where the woman has voluntarily and consciously consented to have a sexual relationship with the accused, then her consent cannot be said to be in consequence of any misconception of fact as envisaged in Sec.90 of the IPC. In _**Dr.Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.,**_ reported in 2019 (1) SCALE 64, the Apex Court has again highlighted about the substantial distinction between rape and consensual sexual relationship. In _**Shivshankar @ Shiva v. State of Karnataka & another**_ (judgment dated 06.04.2018 of the Apex Court in Crl.Appeal No.504/2018), it has been held that it will be rather difficult to hold sexual intercourse in the course of a relationship which was continued for several years is ‘rape’, especially in the face of the complainant’s own allegation that they lived together. In _**Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar**_ ’s case (supra), Crl.M.C. No.2662 of 2020 5 the Apex Court had elucidated the principles in that regard and it has laid down the clear distinction between rape and consensual sexual relationship and that the acknowledged consensual physical relationship between the parties would not constitute an offence under Sec.376 of the IPC. It has also been held that breach of promise to marry in such cases will not by itself lead to a scenario, whereby it can be held that the consent of the woman to undergo sexual relationship was obtained on the basis of misconception of fact as understood in Sec.90 of the IPC. 7. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the decision in _**Jayanti Rani Panda v. State of West Bengal and anr**_ . [1984 KHC 1148] has held that the make out a case that the consent to have sexual relationship was obtained on the basis of false promise, so as to attract the misconception of fact as understood in Sec.90 of the IPC. There should be credible materials to show that the accused had no intention of keeping the promise to marry the lady and that it cannot be said that the failure to keep the alleged promise at a future uncertain date due to reasons not very clear on the evidence does not always amount to misconception of fact at the inception of the Act itself in order to come within the meaning of misconception of fact as understood in Sec.90 of the IPC and that in such cases, to attract the concept of misconception of fact, the fact must have an immediate relevance and proximity in time. Further, it has been held that if two full grown adults consent to have an affair including sexual Crl.M.C. No.2662 of 2020 6 relationship on the promise of marriage and continues to indulge in said activity for a very long time, then such acts need to be seen only as acts done by two full grown adults on the basis of the passions and promiscuity to enjoy each other’s company including physical relationship, unless the court can be assured that from the very inception, the accused never really intended to marry the lady etc. 8. The legal principles in that regard have also been elucidated with all clarity and visibility in the judgment of the Apex Court in _**Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and anr**_ **.** [2019 (9) SCC 608]. These principles are again been reiterated in detail by the three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in a recent judgment dated 28.09.2020 in Crl.Appeal No.635/2020 in the case in _**Maheshwar Tigga v. Sate of Jharkhand**_ [(2020) 2 KLD 589 (SC)], wherein various aspects regarding the issues relating to sexual relationship entered into, on the basis of the alleged promise to marry has been considered in detail. It has been held therein Para.17 thereof that, where a relationship originated in a love affair, developed over a period of time accompanied by physical relationship, consensual in nature, but the parties could not fructify due to various other reasons, then there is no question of commission of the offence of rape as per Sec.375 of the IPC, etc. 9. Now, it will be pertinent to refer to the nature of the allegations raised by the 1[st] respondent – lady defacto complainant in the impugned Crl.M.C. No.2662 of 2020 7 criminal proceedings at Annexure-A. Annexure-A First Information Statement has been given by the 1[st] respondent-lady defacto complainant on 11.3.2020 in respect of the alleged incident which is said to have happened for the period from March 2018 onwards upto December 2018 including the alleged solitary sexual incident which is said to have happened on a day in October/November, 2018. At the outset, it can be seen from a mere reading of Annexure-A FIS even going by the admitted case of the 1[st] respondent that she is a married lady, aged 37 years and is having two sons, one aged 19 years and other aged 15 years and that she is residing separately from her husband for quite some time and further that, she secured divorce from her husband only on August, 2019. Further, it can be seen from Annexure-A, the last alleged meeting between the petitioner and the 1[st] respondent is said to have happened on a day in December, 2018 and the alleged solitary sexual incident is said to have happened on a day in October/November, 2018. 10. Further, it can be seen from Annexure-A that the 1[st] respondent was in search of a job and she had sought for details from a DTP centre (Desktop Publishing centre). Through that, the petitioner, who is running a news portal agency had later contacted her to know whether she is interested in having a job and then he used to have frequent telephonic talks with her and that he represented as if his wife is no more and that he has full sympathies with the plight of the 1[st] respondent, who is separated Crl.M.C. No.2662 of 2020 8 from her husband and that since the 1[st] respondent is a muslim, the petitioner is prepared to change his religion (Christianity) and become a muslim in order to marry her etc. 11. Further that, this developed into a relationship and that the petitioner had borrowed money from her on various occasions totaling to Rs.2,70,000/- Further, it is also stated that out of the said amount, the petitioner has refunded to her an amount of Rs.1,95,000/-. Further that, the petitioner had taken her to his office on a day and that they had sexual relationship on that occasion (which is on a day in October/ November, 2018) and that she had agreed since petitioner had assured her that he would marry her etc. 12. Further that, later petitioner lost interest and had not given back the remaining due amounts and that after, December, 2018, the petitioner evaded her telephone calls and that later, 1[st] respondent came to know that the petitioner is already married and having children and that she has been cheated and that the petitioner did not even bother to give her back the remaining due amounts to her in the said borrowal transaction. 13. It is also pertinent to note that submission of Annexure-A FIS dated 11.3.2020, the 1[st] respondent has submitted Annexure-C petition/complaint dated 12.12.2019 before the same SHO, Circle Inspector of Police, Thiruvananthapuram Museum Police Station. In Annexure-C petition dated 12.12.2019, the 1[st] respondent would assert that all Crl.M.C. No.2662 of 2020 9 throughout, she knew that the version given by the petitioner to the 1[st] respondent as if he was a widower and he would change his religion to marry the 1[st] respondent etc. are only bluffs and she never believed it, but she had only some sympathy for him since he was showing some interest in her. Further, very importantly, the 1[st] respondent would assert in Annexure-C (see last page thereof) that though the petitioner had attempted on various occasions to induce the 1[st] respondent to have sexual relationship, she never yielded to it and that no sexual incident has thereby occurred, as she has never succumbed to his allurements and inducements etc. 14. The only complaint made by the 1[st] respondent in Annexure-C petition dated 12.12.2019 given before the very same SHO is that the petitioner has borrowed money from her on various occasions totaling to Rs.2,70,000/- and that he has refunded only Rs.1,95,000/- and that the petitioner has cheated her as he had now been evading her and not repaying back the balance of borrowed amounts. Thus, it can be seen that the case set up by the 1[st] respondent in Annexure-C dated 12.12.2020 is diametrically opposite to the one given by her in Annexure-A FIS dated 11.3.2020 to the extent it concerns the main issue regarding the allegations of sexual incidents. Firstly, she would assert in Annexure-C that she never believed the versions of the petitioner that as if he is a widower and that he would change his religion to marry her and that she knew that the Crl.M.C. No.2662 of 2020 10 petitioner was all throughout bluffing. Further, most importantly she would assert that though petitioner tried various **times** to induce her and to have sexual relationship, she never yielded and succumbed to such offers of the petitioner and therefore, no sexual incident has happened. The only complaint regarding the borrowal transaction and that she has been cheated on account of not refunding of the balance due amounts. Annexure-C petition dated 12.12.2019 is acknowledged in Annexure-D police register kept by the SHO. 15. It is also the admitted case of both sides that the 1[st] respondent has also set in motion separate petition/complaint dated 13.12.2019 before the Kerala State Women's Commission as can be seen from Annexure-B proceedings No.P1/5279/TVM/KWC/2019 dated 13.12.2019 and Annexure-M proceedings. 16. The petitioner has asserted that even in Annexure-B petition dated 13.12.2019 filed by the 1[st] respondent raising allegations against the petitioner, she has never raised any allegations regarding the alleged sexual incident and the only allegation therein is that she has been financially and mentally harassed on account of the petitioner’s failure to refund the balance of the borrowal amount as stated hereinabove. 17. The learned Public Prosecutor was earlier requested to get instructions as to whether Annexure-C petition and Annexure-B proceedings have been set in motion by the 1[st] respondent and the learned Crl.M.C. No.2662 of 2020 11 Prosecutor has submitted on the basis of instructions that Annexure- C petition dated 12.12.2019 has been received by the SHO concerned (Circle Inspector of Police, Thiruvananthapuram city) and it is also reliably learnt that the 1[st] respondent has also filed petition referred to in Annexure-B proceedings dated 13.12.2019 of Kerala State Women's Commission, which is also stated to be on the same lines as in Annexure- C petition. The 1[st] respondent also does not have any dispute regarding the documents at Annexure-C petition, Annexure-D (petition register) etc. 18. Hence, it can be seen that on the 1[st] occasion, the 1[st] respondent has filed Annexure-C petition as can be seen from Annexure-D (petition register) and that therein, she has no case about the alleged sexual incidents etc. and that the only complaint is regarding non-refund of the balance of the borrowed amount. For the first time, the allegations of sexual incident is raised in Annexure-A FIS given as late as on 11.3.2020 in respect of the solitary sexual incident, which is said to happened on a day in October/November, 2018. Further, it is also relevant to note that the allegations are also raised by the 1[st] respondent in Annexure-A FIS that she never knew the proper identity of the petitioner and that she came to know about the correct name of the petitioner only later. However, in AnnexureA FIS itself the 1[st] respondent has clearly stated that the petitioner had initially contacted her in his mobile number, which is mentioned in FIS. The said mobile number is also mentioned by the 1[st] respondent in Crl.M.C. No.2662 of 2020 12 Annexure-C petition. Yet another mobile number of the petitioner is also mentioned in Annexure-C petition. The acquaintance and the relationship between the two was for the period from March 2018 upto December 2018. Since, the 1[st] respondent very well knew even the mobile numbers of the petitioner, it cannot be said that she had any handicap to know the real identity of the petitioner as it is now well known that ordinarily it is quite easy to know the identity of the subscriber of the mobile cell phones through applications like True Caller etc. Therefore, even the version given by the 1[st] respondent in Annexure-A as if she was not very sure about the very identity of the petitioner and that she could know about the correct name of the petitioner only much later etc. does not appear to be fully reliable. 19. In the light of these aspects, the petitioner has made out a very strong probable case that since the case set up in Annexure-C is diametrically opposite to the one in Annexure-A FIS and it is asserted in Annexure-C that no sexual incidents have ever happened and that the 1[st] respondent always knew that the petitioner was bluffing all throughout etc., that the allegations of the sexual incident raised for the first time in Annexure-A FIS, lacks credibility and believability and would have been made only for extraneous and ulterior consideration. 20. Further, it is the admitted case of the 1[st] respondent in Annexure-A FIS itself that she was then a married lady, though she was Crl.M.C. No.2662 of 2020 13 separated from her husband, she secured divorce from her husband only in August, 2019. The acquaintance and the alleged relationship between the parties were for the period from March 2018 to December, 2018 and it is the specific case of the 1[st] respondent that after December, 2018, the petitioner has never contacted her. It is also the admitted case of the 1[st] respondent that she got divorce from her husband only in August, 2019. In the light of the abovesaid admitted facts, it has been noted that even if it is assumed that the allegation of promise to marry has been made by the petitioner, then the same is only a promise said to have been made by the accused to a married lady that the former would marry the latter after the lady secures divorce etc. If sexual incident has happened on the basis of such an alleged promise, can it be said even for a moment that the said consent was obtained on the basis of such a promise which would attract misconception of fact. At the outset, it has to be borne in mind that such an alleged promise made by an accused to a married lady that he would marry the latter after the lady secures divorce is a promise or assurance, which goes against public morals and public policy and therefore, it is hit by Sec. 23 of the Indian Contract Act. Such an unconscionable promise cannot be the legal basis to contend that the consent was obtained on the basis of misconception of fact. Therefore, even if it is assumed that the alleged sexual incident, which is said to have happened on a day in October, 2018 is true, then the same cannot be the Crl.M.C. No.2662 of 2020 14 basis to contend that the consent of the 1[st] respondent was obtained on the basis of the misconception of fact as understood in Sec. 90 of the IPC. In other words, the very vital ingredients of the offence of rape as per Sec.375 of the IPC would then crumble on to the ground as it is to be only held that the alleged sexual incident if true, would have happened only on the basis of consent between two full grown adults. Hence, on this ground also, the impugned criminal proceedings are liable for quashment and it is so ordered. Further, it is also to be borne in mind that it is the admitted case of the 1[st] respondent that the petitioner had borrowed from her about Rs.2,70,000/- on various occasions and that he has repaid an amount of Rs.1,90,000/- to her even before she had given Annexure-C petition or Annexure-A FIS. Therefore, there is strong force in the submission of the petitioner that in view of the said admitted position, it cannot be said that the accused could be imputed with dishonest and fraudulent intention to unlawfully cause loss of money to the 1[st] respondent right from the beginning of the transaction of borrowal. Certain other submissions have been made by counsel for the petitioner in regard to the said transaction which should be dealt with hereinafter. 21. The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent has stated that the petitioner has been involved in very many other bogus transactions and that he is a person Crl.M.C. No.2662 of 2020 15 who does not have any credibility and therefore, this Court should not interfere in the matter. Certain documents have also been produced by the 1[st] respondent in her counter affidavit. Since, the respondents have raised the said issue; this Court has examined some of the aspects in that regard. 22. The petitioner has also contended that the very allegation that the alleged incident is happened on the day in October/November 2018 is absolutely false. In that regard, the petitioner would point out that the allegation is that the petitioner had taken her to his office on a day in October/November, 2018 at which time the alleged sexual incident has happened. The petitioner would point out that Annexure-G is the scene mahazar of this case relating to the said office of the petitioner, where the alleged incident is said to have taken place. The said premises referred to in Annexure-G mahazar is the one covered by Annexure-E agreement for lease entered into between the petitioner and the building owner on the basis of which the petitioner has taken the said premises on rent to accommodate his office. It is pointed out that Annexure-E lease agreement has been entered into only on 15.12.2018 and the petitioner got possession of the said building only thereafter. Hence, it is pointed out that the very allegation that the incident has happened on a day in October/November, 2018 in the abovesaid building as referred to in Annexure-G mahazar is absolutely false and bereft of any merit. 23. In that regard, it is pointed out that the case of the 1[st] Crl.M.C. No.2662 of 2020 16 respondent that petitioner has been convicted by Annexure-R1(b) judgment dated 1.2.2019 in CC No.1598/2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Chengannur, is absolutely bereft of any merit inasmuch as the petitioner has already been acquitted as per Annexure-N appellate judgment 25.9.2020 rendered by the Addl. Sessions Court-III, Mavelikara in Crl.Appeal No.30/2019 in that case. 24. Further, it is pointed out that the allegations raised by the 1[st] respondent regarding the pendency of another crime against the petitioner does not have any relevance etc. inasmuch as the police after investigation has already filed a refer report in that case as can be seen from Annexure-I communication dated 13.3.2017 issued by the District Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram. Further that, the allegations raised by the 1[st] respondent about yet another case against the petitioner involving the offence of Sec.420 of the IPC is also not tenable as this Court has already entertained Crl.M.C No.1383/2019 on that issue in which Annexure-L interim order dated 8.3.2019 has been issued on Crl.M.A. No.1/2019 in the said Crl.M.C. etc. 25. As regards the other case highlighted by the 1[st] respondent in Annexure-R1(e), Sri.George Sebastian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit on the basis of instructions that the main cases referred to therein are already covered by the aforementioned aspects and the remaining case has been instigated by a lady, who is a senior Crl.M.C. No.2662 of 2020 17 Government officer. In that regard, it is pointed out by the petitioner that Annexure-(o) news item dated 29.1.2011 was published in Malayala Manorama, which is a leading news paper in the State regarding certain alleged acts of bribery and corruption by the said lady officer and that the said lady officer was under the impression that the petitioner, who is running a news portal agency would be behind it and therefore, she entertained animosity against the petitioner and it is on that account that she has submitted Annexure-P complaint to the Circle Inspector of Police, Kothamangalam etc. 26. Sri.George Sebastian, learned counsel for the petitioner would also point out that the petitioner has reliably learned that it is the said lady, who is a senior Government officer out of her spite and animosity, who has instigated the 1[st] respondent to file the abovesaid false complaint at Annexure-A FIS dated 11.3.2020 after the submission of Annexure-C petition dated 12.12.2019. Further, as regards Anx.R-1(e), the petitioner would point out that the same has already been stayed by this Court in WP(C).No.21362/2020 filed by the petitioner herein before this Court. As regards Anx.R-1(g), the counsel for the petitioner would point that the said additional document in that regard has been filed by the 1[st] respondent only very recently, and that the petitioner's counsel could learn that, the same is an FIR registered against the petitioner at the instance of the 1[st] respondent herein on 5.11.2020, after the filing of present Crl.M.C. on 28.5.2020 and Crl.M.C. No.2662 of 2020 18 granting of interim stay order by this Court on 1.10.2020. Further, the petitioner's counsel would point out that, even the registration of Anx.R1(g) FIR at the instance of the 1[st] respondent belatedly would also show that, some one is behind her to continue the harassment against the petitioner and further that, this would also fortify the case of the petitioner that it is the abovesaid lady who is a senior government officer (who has submitted Anx.P), who is behind the 1[st] respondent in continuing to put pressure and harassment on the petitioner, etc and that a reading of Anx.R-1(g) would show that the alleged incident narrated therein has nothing to do with the present impugned criminal proceedings at Anx.A. Further that, Anx.R-1(f) produced by the 1[st] respondent would itself show that she has secured divorce from the Family Court only on 26.7.2019 which is much after the alleged last meeting between the petitioner and the 1[st] respondent as alleged in Anx.A FIS. 27. This Court need not get into such issues as it has already been held that Annexure-A proceedings has been set in motion on account of extraneous and ulterior consideration and also that the very ingredients of the alleged offence are not made out etc. Therefore, this Court need not get into the said aspects regarding the allegations made by the petitioner as to the alleged person, who has instigated the 1[st] respondent etc. 28. The upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned criminal proceedings are liable for interdiction as the very initiation and Crl.M.C. No.2662 of 2020 19 continuance of the same would amount to grave abuse of the process of the Court. Before parting with this case, it is also pertinent to refer to some of the fair submissions made by Sri.George Sebastian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. In that regard, it is pointed out by the petitioner’s counsel that even going by the allegation of the 1[st] respondent the total amount taken by the petitioner from her is only Rs.2,70,000/- on various occasions and the petitioner has already refunded to her an amount of Rs. 1,95,000/- and the alleged balance is only Rs.75,000/-. 29. Further that, the allegation made by the 1[st] respondent about an alleged payment said to have been made by her to the petitioner at Thiruvananthapuram on 31.7.2018 is also factually wrong as petitioner was not in Thiruvananthapuram on that day as can be seen from Annexure-H receipt dated 31.7.2018 issued by a hotel in a different town, where the petitioner was then staying. 30. In that regard, it is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the very allegation of the 1[st] respondent that the petitioner had borrowed a total amount of Rs. 2,70,000/- on various occasions is itself factually wrong and the petitioner had paid Rs.1,95,000/to her as she was putting pressure on the petitioner about instituting of the case before the police and further that to put a quietus to the entire controversy. Petitioner is willing to pay the alleged balance amount of Rs.75,000/- to the 1[st] respondent along with interest and that the petitioner Crl.M.C. No.2662 of 2020 20 would pay the said amount by demand draft in the name of the 1[st] respondent and the same will be send either to the 1[st] respondent or to her counsel, who is appearing in this case. 31. The abovesaid submissions made by the petitioner are recorded. The upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned criminal proceedings at Annexure-A is liable for interdiction at the hands of this Court in exercise of the extraordinary, inherent powers conferred under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. In that view of the matter, it is ordered that the impugned Annexure-A FIR in Crime No.260/2020 of Thiruvananthapuram Museum Police Station as against the petitioner/accused and all consequential proceedings thereof as against the petitioner/accused will stand quashed and set aside. 32. Petitioner will produce certified copies of this order before the investigating officer concerned as well as before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram for necessary information. With these observations and directions, the above Criminal Miscellaneous case will stand disposed of. **Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE** SKS Crl.M.C. No.2662 of 2020 21 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** |**ANNEXURE A**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR AND FI STATEMENT IN**| |---|---| ||**CRIME NO.260/2020 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.**| |**ANNEXURE B**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 13/12/2019**| ||**ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE WOMEN'S**| ||**COMMISSION TO THE PETITIONER.**| |**ANNEXURE C**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED**| ||**12/12/2019 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT**| ||**BEFORE THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF MUSEUM.**| |**ANNEXURE D**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE**| ||**PETITION REGISTER OF THE NUSEUM POLICE**| ||**STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED**| ||**13.12.2019**| |**ANNEXURE E**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR LEASE DEED**| ||**DATED 15.12.2018**| |**ANNEXURE F**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF DOCUMENT DATED**| ||**8.6.2020 SUBMITTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE,**| ||**MUSEUM POLICE STATION BEFORE JFCM III**| ||**COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM**| |**ANNEXURE G**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE SCENE MAHAZAR DATED**| ||**13.3.2020 PREPARED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE,**| ||**MUSEUM POLICE STATION**| |**ANNEXURE H**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DTED 31.7.2018**| ||**ISSUED FROM HOTEL RAJ INTERNATIONAL,**| ||**CHENGANNUR.**| |**ANNEXURE I**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2.9.2016 IN**| ||**CRL.M.C. NO.7986/2016**| |**ANNEXURE J**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED**| ||**13.3.2017 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT POLICE**| ||**CHIEF, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY**| |**ANNEXURE K**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN**| ||**THE E-COURTS PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL**| ||**WEBSTIE IN RESPECT OF THE JUDGMNENT DATED**| ||**25.9.2020 IN CRL.APPEAL NO.30/2019 OF THE**| ||**ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, MAVELIKARA**| Crl.M.C. No.2662 of 2020 22 **ANNEXURE L A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.3.2019 IN CRL.M.A.NO.1/2019 IN CRL.M.C. NO. 1383/2019** **ANNEXURE K A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ORDER SHEET (PROCEEDINGS) ISSUED FROM THE KERALA STATE WOMEN'S COMMISSION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. AANEXURE-L A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.9.2020 IN CRL.APPEAL NO.30/2019 OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-III, MAVELIKKARA ANNEXURE M A TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 29.1.2011 ANNEXURE M A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY ONE P.K. REMA BEFORE THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTHAMANGALAM** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE-R1(A) : SERIES TRUE COPIES OF THE PAPER CUTTINGS RELATING TO THE ARREST OF THE PETITIONER** **ANNEXURE—R1(B) : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CC NO.1598/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATEI, CHENGANNUR DATED 1.2.2019** **ANNEXURE-R1(C) : TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 2171/2013 OF CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION, DATED 16.11.2013** **ANNEXURE-R1(D) : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN BA NO.5479/2020 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT, DATED 18.9.2020** **ANNEXURE-R1(E) : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ADDITIONAL SUPERINJTENDENT OF POLICE, DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, ERNAKULAM DATED 3.9.2020** **ANNEXURE-R1(F) : TUR COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP(DMMA) MP/813/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, ATTINGAL DATED 26.7.2019** **ANNEXURE-R1((G) TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.78/20210 OF CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, DATED 5.11.2020**