PRADEES MADHAVAN v. STATE OF KERALA

``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 16[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1945 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 2593 OF 2023 ``` ``` CRIME NO.425/2022 OF Infopark Police Station, Ernakulam ``` ## `PETITIONER/ACCUSED:` ``` PRADEES MADHAVAN AGED 35 YEARS S/O MADHAVAN,KARIMBAKANDY HOUSE, NEAR NAYAROTTU TEMPLE, KOTTAPPALLI P.O, KOZHIKKODE, PIN - 673542 BY ADVS. M.SUNILKUMAR S.SANDEEP (S-3458) NIDHEESH P. RAJEESH V.R. RAKESH R. ``` ## `RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:` ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2XXX AGED 24 YEARS XXX, PIN - 688582 BY ADV PRIYADARSAN THAMPI G SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN – SR.PP ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ``` 16.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 2593 OF 2023 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **ORDER** Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.425/2022 of Infopark Police Station, Ernakulam alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 354, 354(A)(2)(I) r/w 354(A)(i)(ii), 509, 506(i), 376, 376(2)(k) (n) and 313 of the Indian Penal Code. The matter is now pending as SC.No.10/2023 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, (POCSO), Ernakulam. 2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner had sexual relationships with the defacto complainant/victim/ 2[nd] respondent on the false promise of marriage and thereafter the petitioner intimidated her and backed out from the promise of marriage and thereby he committed the offences alleged against him. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that a reading of the first information ``` CRL.MC NO. 2593 OF 2023 ``` ``` 3 ``` statement of the defacto complainant will itself show that the relationship between the petitioner and the defacto complainant was purely consensual. It is submitted that the defacto complainant/victim/ 2[nd] respondent has now executed an affidavit which is placed on record as Annexure A4 which would further indicate that the petitioner has not committed any of the offences alleged against him. It is submitted that the defacto complainant/victim/ 2[nd] respondent has clearly stated that the relationship between the petitioner and the defacto complainant was purely consensual and there was no element of rape or criminal intimidation as alleged in her complaint. It is submitted that Annexure A4 also indicates that the defacto complainant/victim/ 2[nd] respondent was clearly aware that the petitioner was a married man and she still continued her relationship with him and even stayed with him for one and a half years in Bahrain. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that a statement has been recorded from the defacto ``` CRL.MC NO. 2593 OF 2023 ``` ``` 4 ``` complainant/victim/ 2[nd] respondent and she has reiterated the contents of Annexure A4 affidavit. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant would also confirm that the defacto complainant/victim/ 2[nd] respondent will stands by all statements contained in Annexure A4 affidavit dated 16.10.2023. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned the counsel for the defacto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that in the light of the categoric statements contained in Annexure A4 affidavit of the defacto complainant, proceedings against the petitioner can be quashed. A reading of Annexure A4 affidavit will indicate that both the petitioner and the defacto complainant are educated and they had entered into relationship with each other being fully aware of the consequences of their actions. Paragraph No.3 of the affidavit dated 16.10.2023 executed by the defacto complainant/victim/2[nd] respondent clearly states ``` CRL.MC NO. 2593 OF 2023 ``` ``` 5 ``` that the relationship between the petitioner and the defacto complainant/victim/2[nd] respondent was purely consensual and the crime came to be registered on account of differences of opinion, while they were in a relationship. The affidavit also shows that defacto complainant/victim/ 2[nd] respondent had a warm and cordial relationship with the petitioner from 2019 and which developed up to such a situation that they started living together in Bahrain and later in Kerala. The relationship continued till April, 2022. The affidavit, as indicated above, also indicates that thereafter there arose some differences of opinion between them leading to the filing of the complaint resulting in the registration of Crime No.425/2022. 7. The decisions in _**Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another;**_ [(2012) 10 SCC 303)] _**,**_ and _**State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others;**_ [(2019) 5 SCC 688] indicate that offences of rape fall within the category of heinous offences which cannot be quashed on the basis of settlement. However, this is not a ``` CRL.MC NO. 2593 OF 2023 ``` ``` 6 ``` case where the petitioner is seeking to quash the proceedings on the basis of settlement. The petitioner is seeking to quash the proceedings on the ground that the present statement of the defacto complainant/victim/2[nd] respondent indicates that the relationship between the petitioner and the defacto complainant/victim/2[nd] respondent was purely consensual and therefore offences of rape and criminal intimidation as alleged against the petitioner will not sustain. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor has also taken me through certain statements given by the defacto complainant/victim/ 2nd respondent, forming part of the final report, which also appear to indicate that the statements in the affidavit dated 16.10.2023 are true. Therefore, keeping in mind the law laid down by the Supreme Court in **Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and Another** [2019 (9) SCC 608]; **Shambhu Kharwar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another** [AIR 2022 SC 3901]; **and Dr.Dhruvaram** ``` CRL.MC NO. 2593 OF 2023 ``` ``` 7 ``` **Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra and Others** [2019 (18) SCC 191] **,** I am of the view that the proceedings against the petitioner can be quashed. Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and all further proceedings in Crime No.425/2022 of Infopark Police Station, Ernakulam will stand quashed as against the petitioner. **Sd/GOPINATH P. JUDGE** SSK/16/11 ``` CRL.MC NO. 2593 OF 2023 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## `APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2593/2023` ``` PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES ``` ``` Annexure A1COPY OF THE FIR IN CRME NO.425/2022 OF INFOPARK POLICE STATION Annexure A2ACCUSED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.425/2022 OF INFOPARK POLICE STATION Annexure A3AFFIDAVIT OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 20.03.2023. Annexure A4ADDITIONAL AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ```