K.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.

The respondent-accused in C.M.P.No.1436/99 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Peer made now pending in C.P. 21/99 has filed this M.C. to quash the entire proceedings under S.482 of the Cr.P.C.

2. The 1st respondent herein filed a complaint before the Magistrate's Court in C.M.P. 1436/99 alleging offences punishable under Ss.363, 365, 368, 372, 373, 376 and 392 r/w Ss.109 and 34 IPC against the petitioner herein. The learned Magistrate after recording the sworn statements of the complainant and seven witnesses and finding sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner, for the offence punishable under S.376 IPC, took the complaint into file, numbered as C.P. 21/99 and issued summons to the petitioner by the impugned order dated 7.5.99. Hence the petitioner has preferred this M.C. before this Court to quash the entire proceedings on various grounds

3. The 1st respondent has alleged in the complaint that one Raju with whom she was in love has lured her away from her residence on 16.1.96 on the promise to marry her and thereafter she was wrongfully confined and taken to various places in Kerala by threat and coercion and subjected to rape by various persons against her will till 26.2.1996. She has also alleged that while she was in wrongful confinement at the Rest House, Kumily from 15.2.96 onwards, on 19.2.96 at about 7 p.m. a person aged about 50 years called Banji entered the room and forcibly raped her twice successively ignoring her plea to rescue her and her protest and left the room about 7.30 p.m. It is further alleged that when she found the photograph in Mathrubhoomi dated 26.3.96 she identified that the person called Banji who raped her on 19.296 is the petitioner herein, who was a Central Minister at that time. She informed this fact to her father and he informed the matter to the concerned authorities. But since, the petitioner's name was not included in the charge sheet laid by the police, which is pending as SC 3 5/98 before the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha, as the accused for the offences committed against her, the complaint is filed before the Magistrate's Court.

4. On the basis of the F.I. Statement given by the 2nd respondent herein, the father of the 1st respondent on 17.1.96,theMunnarPolicehad registered an FIR in Crime No. 6/96 and after investigation the Crime Branch Police had filed charge-sheet against 42 accused persons and the same was pending in SC 35/98 before the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha and the same is now pending before the Special Court established for the trial of the case. The charge-sheet was filed before the Court by the investigating officer on 17.8.97. The above complaint is filed by the 1st respondent on 15.3.99 before the learned Magistrate.

5. In this M.C. the petitioner seeks to quash the entire proceedings against him on the following grounds. If all the allegations made by the 1 st respondent-complainant are taken at their face value and accepted in its entirety, it will not make out a prima facie case against the petitioner. The allegations made in the complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent man can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner. The proceedings are instituted maliciously with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance against the petitioner and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge on account of political enmity. The allegations made against the petitioner are totally baseless and absolutely false. The present complaint filed by the 1 st respondent is not legally sustainable in view of O.P. 6945/96 filed by the 2nd respondent before this Court on the principles of estoppel by election. The impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is illegal since the learned Magistrate has not complied with the proviso to sub-s.(2) of S.202 of the Cr.P.C.

6. The 2nd respondent had filed the F.I.-Statement before