BY AD vs JOSEPH GEORGE

O R D E R The petitioner herein is the sole accused in Crime no.703/2018 of Koipuram Police Station, Pathanamthitta. The offences alleged are under Sections 366 and 376 of the Penal Code and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act. The petitioner seeks quashment of the entire proceedings in the above Crime, on the strength of the settlement arrived at by and between the parties.

2. The prosecution case leveled against the petitioner is that, the petitioner committed rape on the defacto complainant/victim by extending a false promise of marriage. At the time of the alleged incident, the petitioner was a 23 year old Bsc.MLT graduate, employed as a lab technician in a private hospital at Malappuram. The petitioner took the victim to Aranmula Sub Registrar office Crl.M.C.No.9440 of 2022 - 3 - and induced her to sign several documents for the purpose of solemnizing a registered marriage. Thereafter, the petitioner committed rape on the defacto complainant from the month of April, 2016 till 16th June, 2018 at various places, including the residential house of the petitioner, various resorts and home stays near K.S.R.T.C bus station, Alappuzha. The prosecution would further allege that the petitioner took the victim to the aforementioned places in his car, bearing Registration No. KL 05 AF 2525, and took several nude photographs of the victim. Later, the petitioner began fabricating various excuses and distanced himself from any discussion regarding the marriage between the defacto complainant and the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner withdrew from the marriage, interdicted the victim from disclosing the incident to anyone, and threatened the defacto complainant, stating that he would publish her nude photographs and kill her parents and sister, if she disclose the matter, thereby committing the offences enumerated above. Crl.M.C.No.9440 of 2022 - 4 -

3. It is the specific case of the defacto complainant in the F.I.S. that the complaint was lodged after she informed her parents about the alleged incident, upon realizing that that the petitioner would not marry her, despite subjecting her to rape multiple times. However, as regards the rape, the case espoused is that, she was subjected to sexual intercourse, on pure basis of treating her as his wife, as part of the promise to marry.

4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. This Court notice that the petitioner is seeking quashment on the strength of a settlement arrived at by and between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. An affidavit has been sworn to by the defacto complainant, wherein she would unequivocally vouch that the matter has been settled amicably and that, the petitioner and the defacto complainant have decided to solemnize their marriage as early as possible. The defacto complainant Crl.M.C.No.9440 of 2022 - 5 - would also state that she has no further grievances against the petitioner and that the complaint was lodged under a mistaken impression. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner and that she does not want to proceed with the prosecution case, any further. When this Crl.M.C. was moved, this Court directed the learned Public Prosecutor to get the statement of the defacto complainant recorded through the Investigating Officer. The same is also available before this Court, wherein also, the defacto complainant would re-iterate the factum of settlement, as also, her disinterestedness to prosecute the matter any more. She would also reiterate that the families of both the petitioner and the defacto complainant have decided to conduct their marriage.

6. Subsequently, during the course of proceedings before this Court, the marriage took place on 11.11.2024 and the certificate of marriage issued by the Mar Thoma Church, Maramon, has been produced at Annexure-A6. This Court has Crl.M.C.No.9440 of 2022 - 6 - also perused the photograph of the marriage ceremony produced at Annexure-A7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the marriage, the petitioner and the defacto complainant are leading a happy and harmonious life, as husband and wife. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that further prosecution is neither going to fetch any result in favour of the prosecution, nor of any good to the defacto complainant. Learned Counsel would submit that the binding precedents on alleged rape, pursuant to a promise to marry, will enure to the benefit of the petitioner, inasmuch as the petitioner had no intention, whatsoever, to extract the consent of the defacto complainant by extending a false promise to marry, which was never intended to be acted upon.

7. This Court takes into account the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. The State of Maharashtra and another [2019 9 SCC 608], Dr.Dhruvaram Mulidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra and others [AIR 2019 SC 327] and Shivshankar @ Shiva v. State Crl.M.C.No.9440 of 2022 - 7 - of Karnataka and another [(2019) 18 SCC 204]. The dictum laid down in the above authoritative pronouncements by the Hon'ble Supreme Court would embolden this Court to allow the instant Crl.M.C. by quashing the crime, as also, all further proceedings against the petitioner.

8. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, there was no false promise of marriage extended by the petitioner to the defacto complainant, with an eye fixed on extracting her consent for the purpose of satisfying petitioner’s lust. There was a genuine relationship between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. However, both of them belong to different religious backgrounds, and for that reason, the marriage could not be solemnized. It was thereafter that the defacto complainant lodged the complaint appreciating that the marriage would not be solemnized. Going by the F.I.S., it is clear that there was a romantic love relationship between the petitioner and the victim, and that the petitioner promised to marry the defacto complainant. While Crl.M.C.No.9440 of 2022 - 8 - it may be true that there were a physical relationship pursuant to that promise of marriage, such conduct, in this case, falls short of the legal requirements to constitute an offence punishable for rape under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code.

9. More importantly, the petitioner and defacto complainant had thereafter, got married as evidenced from the marriage certificate. They are presently living together as husband and wife, happily. Affidavit sworn to by the defacto complainant would vouch that the defacto complainant has no grievance, whatsoever, against the petitioner now and that the issues have been settled amicably.

10. In the light of the above referred facts, this Court is of the opinion that the necessary parameters, as culled out in Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab [(2014) 6 SCC 466], Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582] and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another Crl.M.C.No.9440 of 2022 - 9 - [(2012) 10 SCC 303], are fully satisfied. This Court is convinced that further proceedings against the petitioner will be a futile exercise, inasmuch as the disputes have already been settled. There is little possibility of any conviction in the crime. Dehors the settlement arrived at by and between the parties, if they are compelled to face the criminal proceedings, the same, in the estimation of this Court, will amount to abuse of process of Court. The quashment sought for would secure the ends of justice.

11. In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. succeeds and F.I.R. in Crime No.703/2018 of Koipuram Police Station, Pathanamthitta and all further proceedings pursuant thereto, will stand quashed. Sd/- C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE Crl.M.C.No.9440 of 2022 - 10 - APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 9440/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES SEALED COVER 1 ANNEXURE A-1 SEALED COVER 2 ANNEXURE A-2 SEALED COVER 3 ANNEXURE A-3 SEALED COVER 4 ANNEXURE A-4 SEALED COVER ANNEXURE A-6 SEALED COVER ANNEXURE A-7 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.703/2018 OF KOIPURAM POLICE STATION. CERTIFIED COPY OF SCENE MAHAZAR DATED 03.07.2018 IN CRIME 703/2018 OF KOIPURAM POLICE STATION. CERTIFIED COPY OF SCENE MAHAZAR DATED 12.07.2018 IN CRIME 703/2018 OF KOIPURAM POLICE STATION. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.07.2018 IN CRL.M.P.2868/2018 OF THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE PATHANAMTHITTA. MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE NO.06/2024-25 DATED 19.11.2024. PHOTOGRAPH OF THE MARRIAGE CEREMONY.

O R D E R The petitioner herein is the sole accused in Crime no.703/2018 of Koipuram Police Station, Pathanamthitta. The offences alleged are under Sections 366 and 376 of the Penal Code and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act. The petitioner seeks quashment of the entire proceedings in the above Crime, on the strength of the settlement arrived at by and between the parties.

2. The prosecution case leveled against the petitioner is that, the petitioner committed rape on the defacto complainant/victim by extending a false promise of marriage. At the time of the alleged incident, the petitioner was a 23 year old Bsc.MLT graduate, employed as a lab technician in a private hospital at Malappuram. The petitioner took the victim to Aranmula Sub Registrar office Crl.M.C.No.9440 of 2022 - 3 - and induced her to sign several documents for the purpose of solemnizing a registered marriage. Thereafter, the petitioner committed rape on the defacto complainant from the month of April, 2016 till 16th June, 2018 at various places, including the residential house of the petitioner, various resorts and home stays near K.S.R.T.C bus station, Alappuzha. The prosecution would further allege that the petitioner took the victim to the aforementioned places in his car, bearing Registration No. KL 05 AF 2525, and took several nude photographs of the victim. Later, the petitioner began fabricating various excuses and distanced himself from any discussion regarding the marriage between the defacto complainant and the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner withdrew from the marriage, interdicted the victim from disclosing the incident to anyone, and threatened the defacto complainant, stating that he would publish her nude photographs and kill her parents and sister, if she disclose the matter, thereby committing the offences enumerated above. Crl.M.C.No.9440 of 2022 - 4 -

3. It is the specific case of the defacto complainant in the F.I.S. that the complaint was lodged after she informed her parents about the alleged incident, upon realizing that that the petitioner would not marry her, despite subjecting her to rape multiple times. However, as regards the rape, the case espoused is that, she was subjected to sexual intercourse, on pure basis of treating her as his wife, as part of the promise to marry.

4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. This Court notice that the petitioner is seeking quashment on the strength of a settlement arrived at by and between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. An affidavit has been sworn to by the defacto complainant, wherein she would unequivocally vouch that the matter has been settled amicably and that, the petitioner and the defacto complainant have decided to solemnize their marriage as early as possible. The defacto complainant Crl.M.C.No.9440 of 2022 - 5 - would also state that she has no further grievances against the petitioner and that the complaint was lodged under a mistaken impression. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner and that she does not want to proceed with the prosecution case, any further. When this Crl.M.C. was moved, this Court directed the learned Public Prosecutor to get the statement of the defacto complainant recorded through the Investigating Officer. The same is also available before this Court, wherein also, the defacto complainant would re-iterate the factum of settlement, as also, her disinterestedness to prosecute the matter any more. She would also reiterate that the families of both the petitioner and the defacto complainant have decided to conduct their marriage.

6. Subsequently, during the course of proceedings before this Court, the marriage took place on 11.11.2024 and the certificate of marriage issued by the Mar Thoma Church, Maramon, has been produced at Annexure-A6. This Court has Crl.M.C.No.9440 of 2022 - 6 - also perused the photograph of the marriage ceremony produced at Annexure-A7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the marriage, the petitioner and the defacto complainant are leading a happy and harmonious life, as husband and wife. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that further prosecution is neither going to fetch any result in favour of the prosecution, nor of any good to the defacto complainant. Learned Counsel would submit that the binding precedents on alleged rape, pursuant to a promise to marry, will enure to the benefit of the petitioner, inasmuch as the petitioner had no intention, whatsoever, to extract the consent of the defacto complainant by extending a false promise to marry, which was never intended to be acted upon.

7. This Court takes into account the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. The State of Maharashtra and another [2019 9 SCC 608], Dr.Dhruvaram Mulidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra and others [AIR 2019 SC 327] and Shivshankar @ Shiva v. State Crl.M.C.No.9440 of 2022 - 7 - of Karnataka and another [(2019) 18 SCC 204]. The dictum laid down in the above authoritative pronouncements by the Hon'ble Supreme Court would embolden this Court to allow the instant Crl.M.C. by quashing the crime, as also, all further proceedings against the petitioner.

8. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, there was no false promise of marriage extended by the petitioner to the defacto complainant, with an eye fixed on extracting her consent for the purpose of satisfying petitioner’s lust. There was a genuine relationship between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. However, both of them belong to different religious backgrounds, and for that reason, the marriage could not be solemnized. It was thereafter that the defacto complainant lodged the complaint appreciating that the marriage would not be solemnized. Going by the F.I.S., it is clear that there was a romantic love relationship between the petitioner and the victim, and that the petitioner promised to marry the defacto complainant. While Crl.M.C.No.9440 of 2022 - 8 - it may be true that there were a physical relationship pursuant to that promise of marriage, such conduct, in this case, falls short of the legal requirements to constitute an offence punishable for rape under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code.

9. More importantly, the petitioner and defacto complainant had thereafter, got married as evidenced from the marriage certificate. They are presently living together as husband and wife, happily. Affidavit sworn to by the defacto complainant would vouch that the defacto complainant has no grievance, whatsoever, against the petitioner now and that the issues have been settled amicably.

10. In the light of the above referred facts, this Court is of the opinion that the necessary parameters, as culled out in Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab [(2014) 6 SCC 466], Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582] and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another Crl.M.C.No.9440 of 2022 - 9 - [(2012) 10 SCC 303], are fully satisfied. This Court is convinced that further proceedings against the petitioner will be a futile exercise, inasmuch as the disputes have already been settled. There is little possibility of any conviction in the crime. Dehors the settlement arrived at by and between the parties, if they are compelled to face the criminal proceedings, the same, in the estimation of this Court, will amount to abuse of process of Court. The quashment sought for would secure the ends of justice.

11. In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. succeeds and F.I.R. in Crime No.703/2018 of Koipuram Police Station, Pathanamthitta and all further proceedings pursuant thereto, will stand quashed. Sd/- C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE Crl.M.C.No.9440 of 2022 - 10 - APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 9440/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES SEALED COVER 1 ANNEXURE A-1 SEALED COVER 2 ANNEXURE A-2 SEALED COVER 3 ANNEXURE A-3 SEALED COVER 4 ANNEXURE A-4 SEALED COVER ANNEXURE A-6 SEALED COVER ANNEXURE A-7 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.703/2018 OF KOIPURAM POLICE STATION. CERTIFIED COPY OF SCENE MAHAZAR DATED 03.07.2018 IN CRIME 703/2018 OF KOIPURAM POLICE STATION. CERTIFIED COPY OF SCENE MAHAZAR DATED 12.07.2018 IN CRIME 703/2018 OF KOIPURAM POLICE STATION. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.07.2018 IN CRL.M.P.2868/2018 OF THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE PATHANAMTHITTA. MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE NO.06/2024-25 DATED 19.11.2024. PHOTOGRAPH OF THE MARRIAGE CEREMONY.