ORDER : The prayer in the aforecaptioned Crl.M.C filed under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C is as follows: “…………………… to quash all further proceedings in Annexure I final report which is now pending as CRIME No.304/2018 pending on the file of the Crime No.304/2018 of Tiruvambadi Police Station, Kozhikode, as it is an abuse of process of court.” 2. Heard Sri.S.Rajeev, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (sole accused) instructed and assisted by Sri.K.K.Dheerendra Krishnan, learned Advocate, Sri.B.Jayasurya, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State of Kerala and Sri.Ieans C.Chamakkala, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent (minor victim girl represented by her mother). 3. The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in the impugned Annexure-I First Information Report in Crime No.304/2018 of Tiruvambadi Police Station, Kozhikode District, for offences punishable under Sec.376(2) (f) & (i) of the Indian Penal Code read with Sec.5(m)(n) & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012, on the basis of the First Information Statement given by the mother of the 2nd respondent minor victim girl on 01.11.2018 at about 1.30 p.m. in respect of the alleged incidents, which are said to have happened on 23.06.2018. 4. The petitioner/accused is the younger brother of the father of the minor victim child. Initially, the minor victim girl was residing in the house along with her parents and her paternal grandparents. According to the petitioner, his marriage was solemnized on 11.04.2018 and thereafter, he has been living separately with his wife in another residence. The allegations raised by the mother of the minor victim girl in her First Information Statement at Annexure-I FIR registered on 01.11.2018 as that on 23.06.2018, when the 2nd respondent-victim child was alone in the bedroom and when she came back after going elsewhere, she had seen the petitioner kissing on the cheeks of the 2nd respondent-minor victim girl and that he had inserted his finger into her private parts and that thereby, the petitioner has committed the abovesaid offences. It appears that the mother of the victim girl had thereafter left the marital home along with her child and thereafter, the victim’s mother has caused to send Annexure-IV lawyer’s notice dated 19.07.2018 to her husband (the victim’s father), with whom the mother of the minor victim girl had matrimonial discords, raising various allegations in their matrimonial disputes about alleged misappropriation of money, gold ornaments, etc. and it is specifically alleged therein that she had seen the petitioner (who is her husband’s younger brother) inserting his finger into the minor victim girl’s private parts and was seen vigorously kissing the girl on her cheeks, etc. on 14.06.2018. 5. The case of the petitioner is that the abovesaid allegations raised by the 2nd respondent in the impugned Annexure-I FIR & FIS are blatantly false and malicious and have been made only to put pressure on the victim’s mother’s husband (petitioner’s elder brother) to come to terms and to wreck vengeance on account of the marital difference of opinions and also to ensure that the attempt of the petitioner to secure visa from Canada is blocked, etc. It is further submitted that the mother of the 2nd respondent-victim has now realized her mistakes and has sworn to Annexure-II affidavit dated 08.05.2020, which is attested by an advocate and a Notary Public, wherein it is stated that the abovesaid allegations raised by her in the impugned Annexure-I criminal proceedings arose out of misunderstandings and that the allegations about the penetrative sexual assault are factually wrong and that actually the petitioner had only shown not only affection to the three year old child by kissing on her cheek, etc. and that she is not interested in any manner to proceed with the impugned criminal proceedings, etc. 6. Sri.Ieans C.Chamakkala, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would also submit on the basis of instructions and on the basis of the pleadings in the abovesaid Annexure-II affidavit that the mother of the 2nd respondent-victim girl is not interested to proceed with the matter any further and that the allegations are made out of misunderstandings, as stated above and that the 2nd respondent has no objections in the quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings. 7. After hearing both sides, it has to be borne in mind that it may not be right and proper for this Court ordinarily to quash serious and grave offence as per Sec.376 of the IPC solely on the ground of settlement between the parties {see Shimbhu & Anr. v. State of Haryana [ 2014 (13) SCC 318 ], Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat [ (2017) 9 SCC 641 ], Anita Maria Dias v. State of Maharashtra [ (2018) 3 SCC 290 ], Sebastian @ Solly v. State of Kerala [ 2015 (1) KLJ 384 , etc.}. v. State of Haryana [ 2014 (13) SCC 318 ], Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat [ (2017) 9 SCC 641 ], Anita Maria Dias v. State of Maharashtra [ (2018) 3 SCC 290 ], Sebastian @ Solly v. State of Kerala [ 2015 (1) KLJ 384 , etc.}. Hence, it may not be right and proper for this Court to consider the plea for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings, which also involve allegations of penetrative sexual assault/rape, etc., solely on the ground of the stand taken by the 2nd respondent in her affidavit and the submissions made by her through her counsel. Therefore, this Court has to examine the merits of the controversy to ascertain and evaluate the primary contention raised by the petitioner that the impugned criminal proceedings have been raised on account animosity and that the allegations are false and hence, to examine, as to whether the impugned criminal proceedings could be quashed on the ground that its continuance would amount to abuse of the process of the court. 8. Now coming to the facts of this case, it is the specific case of the petitioner that after his marriage on 11.04.2018, he was living separately with his wife in another house, but that he used to visit his aged parents, who are living together with the victim’s parents and the victim. In the instant case, it has to be borne in mind that for the first time, the victim's mother has raised the allegation, as per Annexure-IV lawyer’s notice dated 19.07.2018 clearly and precisely alleging therein that the abovesaid alleged incident has occurred on 14.06.2018. There is no dispute about the fact that Annexure-IV is a lawyer’s notice issued on behalf of the 2nd respondent through her advocate on 19.07.2018. Whereas, in the impugned Annexure-I FIR & FIS, the specific case of the 2nd respondent is that the incident has occurred on 23.06.2018. Hence, there is serious and grave contradiction in the very case set up by the 2nd respondent right from the very inception of the impugned criminal proceedings, as can be seen from a reading of Annexure-IV lawyer’s notice dated 19.07.2018 vis-a-vis the allegations in Annexure-I FIS dated 01.11.2018. In the former version, the incident is said to have happened on 14.06.2018 and as per the latter version is said to have happened on 23.06.2018. In the former version, the incident is said to have happened on 14.06.2018 and as per the latter version is said to have happened on 23.06.2018. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the abovesaid drastic variance in the allegations and a new case was set up, presumably as the 2nd respondent became aware that the petitioner was not present in the house in question on 14.06.2018. Irrespective as to whether the incident has happened on 14.06.2018 or 23.06.2018, the crucial fact of the matter is that the First Information Statement has been furnished by the 2nd respondent as late as on 01.11.2018. The long delay of five months in lodging of the FIR has not been even remotely explained by the prosecution. The 2nd respondent has not given any version in her FIS or subsequent statements, as to the reasons for the long and unexplained delay in the lodging of the crime in respect of the incident, which is said to have happened on 23.06.2018. Further, it is to be noted that the 2nd respondent-victim child was taken to the hospital on 28.06.2018 and she was admitted on the same day (28.06.2018) and discharged from that hospital on 03.07.2018. Annexure-III is the medical record issued by the said hospital regarding the abovesaid aspects. A reading of Annexure-III medical records would show that no version has been given to any of the doctors either by the mother or the victim about any alleged incidents of sexual assault or sexual harassment, etc. On the other hand, it appears that the child was taken to the hospital by the mother, as she was suffering from fever and tiredness and Annexure-III would also show that on examination, the chest was found to be clear and the genitalia was also examined and the doctor has written there “vulvitis”. It is brought to the notice of this Court that “vulvitis” may be caused due to the following reasons : i. An allergic reaction to bubble bath or soap used to clean the genital area. ii. Use of vaginal sprays or douches iii. Irritation by a chlorinated swimming pool or hot tub water. iv. Allergic reaction to spermicide v. Allergic reaction to sanitary napkins vi. Wearing synthetic underwear or nylon pantyhose without a breathable cotton crotch. vii. Wearing a wet bathing suit for extended periods of time. viii. Bike or horseback riding ix. ii. Use of vaginal sprays or douches iii. Irritation by a chlorinated swimming pool or hot tub water. iv. Allergic reaction to spermicide v. Allergic reaction to sanitary napkins vi. Wearing synthetic underwear or nylon pantyhose without a breathable cotton crotch. vii. Wearing a wet bathing suit for extended periods of time. viii. Bike or horseback riding ix. Fungal or bacterial infections including scabies or public lice x. Herpes xi. Skin conditions such as eczema or dermatitis. Consultation with the dermatologist was also done. The child was given antibiotics and other supportive measures and later when she was found better, the child was discharged from that hospital on 03.07.2018. The most crucial aspect of the matter is that at the time when the mother had taken the child to the hospital on 28.06.2018 and when the child was an impatient in the hospital for about six days, neither the mother nor the child has given even any remote indications to any doctors, who had examined and treated the child about any alleged sexual assault, etc. Therefore, it appears that admittedly the child was taken to the hospital on the complaint of fever. On examination of the external genital area of the child, the doctor has noted about vulvitis., which could be mainly caused due to allergy and other related reasons. There is no dispute that the admission and treatment of the child in the abovesaid hospital, as evident from Annexure-III for the period from 28.06.2018 to 03.07.2018, was after the alleged incident, but much before the registration of Annexure-I FIR dated 01.11.2018. 9. On being queried, as to whether the child was taken to the hospital for medical examination after the registration of Annexure-I FIR dated 01.11.2018, the learned Public Prosecutor, on the basis of records has submitted that the records would show that the child was thereafter taken to a hospital and the doctor has noted that there is a healed linear scar on her private part. On being queried, as to whether the said medical record consequent to the examination of the child on 01.11.2018 or immediately thereafter would reveal the opinion of the doctor about sexual assault, etc., the learned Public Prosecutor has pointed out that apart from noting that there is a healed linear scar, the doctor has not given any opinion that the child may have been subjected to any sexual assault. 10. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that there cannot be any dispute that Annexure-III is the first medical examination of the child done during the period from 28.06.2018 to 03.07.2018, which has revealed about fever and about vulvitis, which is mainly caused due to irritation and allergy and it is only quite natural that a three year old child due to itching and allergy would have scratched the body part concerned, which would resulted in bruises, which would have been healed. 11. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala & another reported in (2009) 14 SCC 466 that where a complaint is found to be vexatious or frivolous or oppressive, the power under Sec.482 Cr.P.C could befittingly exercised to quash such impugned criminal proceedings. In the case State of Orissa through Kumar Raghvendra Singh & others v. Ganesh Chandra Jew reported in (2004) 8 SCC 40 , the Apex Court has held that the impugned criminal proceedings can be quashed where the complaint involves malafides. In the case Lambodaran Nair v. State of Kerala reported in 2003 (1) KLT SN 115 Case No.83 (SC) it has been held by the Apex Court that the power under Sec.482 Cr.PC can be exercised where criminal proceedings were manifestly attended with malafides or to wreck personal vengeance. In the case Om Prakash v. State of Jharkhand reported in (2012) 12 SCC 72 , the Supreme Court has categorically held that if it appears to the trained judicial mind that continuance of a prosecution will lead to abuse of process of law or miscarriage of justice, the power under Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. must be exercised and the proceedings must be quashed. 12. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has a strong probable case in regard to the abovesaid aspect regarding the subsequent examination done on the child on 01.11.2018. Except the unilateral assertions of the mother of the victim child, the police have not been able to collect any evidence from any independent witnesses or sources about the veracity of the allegations in question. The drastic variance of the allegations of the 2nd respondent about the very genesis of the incidents would raise clouds of doubts and suspicion in the mind of any ordinary prudent person. The drastic variance of the allegations of the 2nd respondent about the very genesis of the incidents would raise clouds of doubts and suspicion in the mind of any ordinary prudent person. Moreover, the long delay in lodging of the crime is thoroughly unexplained by the prosecution, inasmuch as the alleged incident, as per the FIR is said to have happened on 23.06.2018 and the FIR & FIS was lodged as late as on 01.11.2018. Annexure-IV lawyer’s notice is an eloquent testimony of the indisputable factual position that the war between the rival spouses was at a very high peak. The Apex Court and various High Courts including this Court have held in various decisions about the effect of unexplained and long delay in lodging of FIR in criminal cases. In the decisions as in the cases in State of Andhra Pradesh v. M.Madhusudhan Rao [ (2008) 15 SCC 582 ], the Apex Court has held that the delay in lodging of FIR will more often than not, result in embellishments and exaggerations, which is a creation of afterthought and that the delayed report, not only gets bereft of the advantages of spontaneity, but the danger of introduction of coloured versions and exaggerated account of incidents or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultation also creeps in, which cast a very serious doubt on the very veracity of the prosecution story. Hence, it has been held that it is highly essential that the delay in lodging of the FIR should be satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. Resultantly, when the substratum of the evidence given by the complainant is found to be unreliable, the prosecution case has to be rejected in its entirety. Coupled with the abovesaid aspect, it has to be borne mind that there is a drastic variance in the prosecution story about the very genesis of the incidents. The first time the child has been taken to the hospital after the alleged incident narrated in Annexure-I FIR, which is said to have happened on 23.06.2018 and has been immediately taken to the hospital on 23.06.2018, where she has been treated as an inpatient and discharged on 03.07.2018. Annexure-III is the medical records in that regard. The first time the child has been taken to the hospital after the alleged incident narrated in Annexure-I FIR, which is said to have happened on 23.06.2018 and has been immediately taken to the hospital on 23.06.2018, where she has been treated as an inpatient and discharged on 03.07.2018. Annexure-III is the medical records in that regard. The overall probability, which would clearly pinpoint that the overall allegations of the prosecution are improper or otherwise and further that the petitioner has thus made out a strong probable case regarding the falsity of the allegations. The petitioner has been living in a separate residence after his marriage on 11.04.2018, which is about 2 ½ months prior to the incidents in question. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he was trying very hard to secure visa to immigrate to Canada, as the petitioner’s wife is permanently employed in Canada, which was known to all the members of the family, including the mother of the victim child, who is the petitioner’s elder brother’s wife. The petitioner would strongly urge that it is on account of the matrimonial disputes between the spouses and also to ensure that the petitioner's attempt to get visa to go to Canada is blocked, that the abovesaid allegations are raised, so that the petitioner will not be able to travel abroad, etc. 13. Further, taking into account the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the continuance of the impugned criminal proceedings would be nothing, but an abuse to the process of the court. Further, now it is submitted by Sri.B.Jayasurya, learned Public Prosecutor that the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kannur has made an overall supervision of the conduct of the investigation in this case and after careful examination of various aspects in the matter has now issued proceedings bearing No.A 18500/SIT/2020/KR dated 07.11.2020, whereby approval has been given to the Investigating Agency to file refer report in the case as the allegations have been found to be false and incorrect. Though quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings of this nature may not be done solely on the ground of settlement, the stand of the 2nd respondent, as revealed in Annexure-II affidavit could also be examined by this Court in the light of the abovesaid totality of the facts and circumstances of this case and also in the light of the specific stand now taken by the Investigating Agency that they have found that the allegations raised in the impugned criminal proceedings are false and that the case is to be referred as false, etc. Therefore, in the light of these aspects, the irresistible conclusion is that the continuance of the impugned criminal proceedings would be nothing but an abuse to the process of the court, leading to wastage of the precious time and energy of the judicial organ of the State, the prosecution machinery and the Investigating Agency and as the proceedings would inevitably lead to the acquittal of the accused. 14. In that view of the matter, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the impugned Annexure-I FIR in Crime No.304/2018 of Tiruvambady Police Station, Kozhikode District registered against the petitioner/accused and all adverse proceedings taken in pursuance thereof as against the petitioner/accused, will stand terminated and rescinded. 15. The petitioner will produce certified copies of this order before the Investigating Officer concerned as well as before the First Additional Sessions Court notified to deal with POCSO cases, Kozhikode, for necessary information. With these observations and directions, the above Crl.M.C will stand disposed of.