ORDER : 1. The case projected in this case filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is as follows: That the petitioner is the sole accused in Anx. A-1 FIR in Crime No. 487/2017 of Aranmula Police Station, registered for offence punishable under Sec. 376 of the I.P.C. based on the complaint of the 3rd respondent defacto complainant, who is none other than the first cousin of the petitioner accused. The prosecution case is that the petitioner had taken the 3rd respondent defacto complainant from Kottarakkara to a vacant space in Kozhencherry on last Thursday of November, 2016 in an autorikshaw and raped her from there. It is stated that Anx. A-1 FIR was registered on the basis of the complaint of the 3rd respondent against the petitioner, from whom she is allegedly became pregnant. It is stated that the petitioner has not committed any offences as alleged against the petitioner. That the 3rd respondent defacto complainant did not appear for taking samples required for the DNA test, despite notice given to her and direction was issued through investigating officer by court below concerned and during the course of the same, she aborted the child in the womb shutting all possibilities of taking samples for DNA testing. That the reluctance to subject herself to DNA sampling pursuant to Anx. A5 order and medical termination of the pregnancy, brings Anx. A-1 FIR within the ambit of guidelines set by the Apex Court in the decision in State of Haryana and Others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others, AIR 1992 SC 604 for quashing the FIR, as well as the decisions which followed the same, where it has been held that when the defacto complainant themselves destroy evidence which tends to prove or disprove the case at a juncture or time when he or she is directed to give the same, it can only be considered as maliciousness on the part of the complainant. It is in the light of the abovesaid aspects, that the petitioner has filed the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Case with the following prayers: “.....to Quash Annexure A-1 FIR in Crime No. 487/2017 of Aranmula Police Station, Pathanamthitta and the further proceedings, for the ends of justice.” 2. Heard Sri.Manu Ramachandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Prosecutor appearing R-1 and R-2 official respondents and Sri. Heard Sri.Manu Ramachandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Prosecutor appearing R-1 and R-2 official respondents and Sri. Ansu Varghese, learned counsel appearing for the R-3. 3. In the instant case, it can be seen from the impugned Anx. A-1 FIR that the impugned incidents are said to have happened for the period from 1.11.2016 to 30.11.2016, whereas the lodging of FIS and the registration of the same has been done as late as on 9.3.2017. The prosecution has not even given any reasonable explanation for the long delay of more than 3 months in the initiation of the criminal proceedings. 4. It is by now too well settled by a series of the rulings of the Apex Court in various decisions as in Thulia Kali vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1973 SC 501 and State of Andhra Pradesh vs. M. Madhusudhan Rao, (2008) 15 SCC 582 etc. that delay in lodging the FIR, more often than not results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creation of an afterthought and a delayed report, not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, but the danger of the introduction of a coloured version, an exaggerated account of incident or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations, also creeps in, thus casting a very serious doubt on its veracity. Therefore, it has been held that it is highly essential that the delay in lodging the FIR should be duly and satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. Resultantly, when the substratum of the prosecution case itself is found to be unreliable, prosecution case has to be rejected in its entirety, etc. 5. It is stated that the petitioner accused aged 31 years happens to be first cousin of the 3rd respondent defacto complainant aged 22 years. The petitioner would assert that the allegation that he had sexual relationship with the 3rd respondent who is his cousin sister, is absolutely false and fabricated. That the 3rd respondent became pregnant on account of her relationship with someone else and she and her family members wanted to thrust the paternity on the petitioner as they did not want the actual truth of the matter to come out, as otherwise it would have detrimentally affected her marriage proposals. That the 3rd respondent became pregnant on account of her relationship with someone else and she and her family members wanted to thrust the paternity on the petitioner as they did not want the actual truth of the matter to come out, as otherwise it would have detrimentally affected her marriage proposals. That the case of the 3rd respondent is that she has became pregnant on account of the said sexual relationship with the petitioner, etc. That thereafter the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Pathanamthitta, has passed Anx. A-4 order 20.3.2017 in the matter of conduct of DNA testing to find out as to who was responsible for the conception and pregnancy of the 3rd respondent. A reading of para No. 3 of Anx. A-4 order would make it clear like the day light that the petitioner accused has himself volunteered and had taken the bold stand before the learned Magistrate that he is prepared to undergo DNA testing so as to prove his claim that he is not in any manner responsible for the pregnancy of the 3rd respondent. Accordingly the learned Magistrate has passed Anx. A-4 order dated 23.3.2017 to ensure that the custody of the petitioner accused is handed over to the investigating officer for conducting the DNA test. It appears that the petitioner has fully co-operated with the investigation agency and has done his due part for effecting the immediate conduct of the DNA testing. Later, it appears that since the 3rd respondent was not showing any interest for subjecting herself to DNA testing, the petitioner himself has filed Anx. A5 Crl. M.P. No. 2668/2017 in the abovesaid crime before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Pathanamthitta, praying that immediate directions should be given to the 1st respondent therein (R-3 herein) to fully co-operate with the investigating agency in the conduct of the DNA testing so as to ascertain as to who was responsible for the conception and pregnancy of the 3rd respondent. Anx. A5 application has been filed by the petitioner before the trial court on 24.3.2017. The petitioner would point out that thereafter the 3rd respondent, without intimating the investigating agency or the court below has unilaterally aborted the child in the womb and thus shutting all possibilities of sampling pursuant to Anx.A-4 order issued for ascertaining and confirming the paternity issue through DNA testing. 6. The petitioner would point out that thereafter the 3rd respondent, without intimating the investigating agency or the court below has unilaterally aborted the child in the womb and thus shutting all possibilities of sampling pursuant to Anx.A-4 order issued for ascertaining and confirming the paternity issue through DNA testing. 6. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the considered view that the abovesaid act of the 3rd respondent in having terminated the solid scientific evidence to ascertain the paternity issue is to be seriously viewed. If, as a matter of fact, it was found that the petitioner was not in any manner responsible for the paternity of the foetus in the womb of the 3rd respondent, then he could have easily disproved that the contention of the 3rd respondent that it was the petitioner who was responsible for her pregnancy and in the facts of this case, it would have led to the demolition of the very substratum and foundation of the prosecution story. By the conduct of the 3rd respondent in not having co-operated with the investigating officer and the court below in the conduct of the DNA testing, in her adamant action in refusing to give any sample for DNA testing and the ultimate act of getting the foetus aborted have to be viewed very seriously. This Court has no hesitation to hold that in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case a serious and adverse inference has to be drawn on the abovesaid crucial conduct of the 2nd respondent. In the nature of the facts and circumstances alleged in the instant prosecution story, this Court has no hesitation to hold that, in view of the abovesaid conduct of the 3rd respondent it has to be held that she has done the abovesaid act of aborting the child in order to defeat the scientific DNA testing process and that an adverse inference is to be drawn that if she has done so, such a testing process would have revealed that it was not the petitioner who was responsible for her pregnancy. Hence it is only to be held that going by the facts and circumstances of the case, the very substratum and foundation of the prosecution story of the prosecutrix has crumbled by her abovesaid act and the impugned criminal proceedings could be interdicted. Hence it is only to be held that going by the facts and circumstances of the case, the very substratum and foundation of the prosecution story of the prosecutrix has crumbled by her abovesaid act and the impugned criminal proceedings could be interdicted. It is now stated by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent that she has fully settled the issues with the petitioner and that subsequently she has married another man and she is leading peaceful married life with her husband and that she has fully settled all disputes with the petitioner accused, who is her cousin brother and the 2nd respondent has sworn to affidavit dated 2.3.2018 and would also point out that the 3rd respondent has sworn to affidavit dated 2.3.2018 (which has been produced as Anx. A-3 in Anx. A6 disposed Crl. M.C. No. 1543/2018) wherein she she has stated that she has fully settled the disputes with the petitioner and that she is no longer interested to continue the impugned criminal proceedings and that this Court may quash the impugned criminal proceedings, etc. Of course, since the offence alleged is one of rape, it may not be right and proper for this Court to consider the issue quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings merely on the ground of settlement. Moreover, it is also to be held that the above act of the 2nd respondent defacto complainant in doing the above acts amounts to her deliberate action to destroy evidence, which tends to prove or disprove highly crucial and relevant facts and should be viewed as a malicious act on her part to scuttle the investigation and the judicial process and so it calls for interdiction of the impugned criminal proceedings. 7. In the light of the abovesaid findings of this Court, it is only to be held that, as the very substratum of the prosecution case has been shattered, the continuance of the impugned criminal proceedings is a sheer abuse of the process of the court. In this context it is only to be incidentally noted that even the 3rd respondent is no longer interested to continue the impugned criminal proceedings. This Court is inclined to quash the impugned criminal proceedings not merely on the ground of settlement as is referred to in the aforesaid affidavit dated 2.3.2018 filed by the 3rd respondent, but in the light of the aforesaid independent grounds. This Court is inclined to quash the impugned criminal proceedings not merely on the ground of settlement as is referred to in the aforesaid affidavit dated 2.3.2018 filed by the 3rd respondent, but in the light of the aforesaid independent grounds. Accordingly, it is ordered that the impugned Anx. A-1 FIR in Crime No. 487/2017 of Aranmula Police Station, registered as against the petitioner accused and all further proceedings emanating therefrom as against the petitioner accused will stand quashed. 8. The petitioner will produce certified copies of this order before the investigating officer concerned and the competent court below concerned. The office of the Advocate General will forward copy of this order to the investigating officer concerned for information. 9. With these observations and directions, the above Criminal Miscellaneous Case stands finally disposed of.