Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 734 (KER)

Prabin Raj, S/o. Rajan v. Sub Inspector Of Police

2024-06-25

A.BADHARUDEEN

body2024
ORDER : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with the following prayers: (i) quash Annexure 3 final report in Crime No.1813/2014 of Pudukad Police Station, which is now pending as L.P.R.No.50/2016 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda. (ii) direct the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda to release the petitioner on bail on his surrender in L.P.R.No.50/2016. Or (iii) issue any appropriate order or directions as this Hon’ble Court deem fit on considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the relevant documents including Annexure-3 final report, which is under challenge. 3. This crime was registered alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, by the accused, who is the petitioner herein. 4. The prosecution allegation herein is that the accused herein made relationship with the defacto complainant and offered to marry her. Thereafter, he reached the residence of the defacto complainant on a day during March, 2012, when no-one other than the petitioner was there. After talking for a while he demanded for sexual favour and the defacto complainant resisted the same. Then he repeated the offer of marriage and forcefully had sexual intercourse with her. Then the defacto complainant cried aloud and the accused assured her to marry. Thereafter, the accused subjected the defacto complainant to sexual intercourse, repeatedly assuring marriage. Later she became pregnant and the matter was informed to the accused. But he left abroad for the purpose of job. The matter of pregnancy was informed to the mother of the accused also and the mother also assured marriage with the accused, on return of the accused from abroad. According to the defacto complainant, later the defacto complainant delivered a child and the father of the child is the accused. This is the premise on which the prosecution alleges commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. According to the defacto complainant, later the defacto complainant delivered a child and the father of the child is the accused. This is the premise on which the prosecution alleges commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. While canvassing quashment of this case arising out of crime registered in the year 2014, now pending as L.P.No.50/2016 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no materials are available to see, prima facie, commission of the offence of rape, alleged to be committed by the accused. It is also submitted that during the period of commission of rape during March, 2012, the accused was not in India and he came to India only on 10.04.2012. Annexure-4, copy of his passport, has been placed to substantiate the said contentions. 6. Whereas the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the defacto complainant was subjected to forceful intercourse on the promise of marriage and she became pregnant and a child also was born in the said relationship. The contention raised by the accused that he was not in station, is a matter to be proved before the trial court. Apart from that the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the case of the defacto complainant started from March, 2012 and thereafter on various occasions she was subjected to rape. Therefore, this case would go for trial. 7. I have perused the F.I statement and relevant documents form part of the case diary. 8. The prosecution case is that the accused herein made relationship with the defacto complainant and offered to marry her. Thereafter, he reached the residence of the defacto complainant on a day during March, 2012, when no-one other than the petitioner was there. After talking for a while he demanded for sexual favour and the defacto complainant resisted the same. Then he repeated the offer of marriage and forcefully had sexual intercourse with her. Then the defacto complainant cried aloud and the accused assured her to marry. Thereafter, the accused subjected the defacto complainant to repeated sexual intercourse with assurance to marry her. While so, she became pregnant and the matter was informed to the accused. But he left abroad for the purpose of job. Then the defacto complainant cried aloud and the accused assured her to marry. Thereafter, the accused subjected the defacto complainant to repeated sexual intercourse with assurance to marry her. While so, she became pregnant and the matter was informed to the accused. But he left abroad for the purpose of job. The matter of pregnancy was informed to the mother of the accused also and the mother also assured marriage with the accused, on return of the accused from abroad. Later, the defacto complainant delivered a child and according to the defacto complainant, the accused is the father of the child. 9. Annexure 4, photocopy of the passport of the petitioner, has been placed to substantiate that the accused was not in station during March, 2012. On perusal of the photocopy of the passport, the said aspect is not so legibly discernible. Apart from that, thee is allegation for the prosecution that subsequent to March, 2012 also there was sexual intercourse with promise of marriage and the defacto complainant delivered a child. Thus going by the allegations, there was relationship with offer to marry and accordingly the defacto complainant became pregnant and she delivered a child. In such a case, sexual intercourse on the promise of marriage which would vitiate consent is prima facie foreseeable. Thus in this matter, prima facie, the prosecution allegations are made out and the matter shall go for evidence. Holding so, this Crl.M.C stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to raise his contention during trial before the trial court. 10. The accused/petitioner is directed to surrender before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda, within a period of two weeks from today to facilitate committal of this case, which, in fact, included in the long pending register and also to co-operate with the trial. On failure to do so, the committal court is directed to go for coercive steps to secure the presence of the accused for committal, in accordance with law. During committal proceedings the learned Magistrate shall ensure that the accused will be available for trial in a case arising out of a crime of the year 2014. Registry shall forward a copy of this order to the jurisdictional court for information and compliance.