Important points:
" Consent may be express or implied, coerced or misguided, obtained willingly or through deceit.
" Consent for the purpose of Section 375 I.P.C. requires voluntary participation not only after the exercise of intelligence based on the knowledge of the significance and moral quality of the act, but also after having fully exercised the choice between resistance and assent.

1. The petitioner is the accused in the case C.P. No. 13 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-1, Pathanamthitta. He is accused of committing an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The case against the petitioner was registered as Crime No. 2211 of 2014 of the Pathanamthitta police station on the basis of the first information statement given to the police by the victim lady, the first respondent herein. After completing the investigation of the case, Annexure-3 final report was filed against the petitioner alleging that he had committed rape on the first respondent. On the basis of the final report, committal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and the case is pending as C.P. No. 13 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-1, Pathanamthitta. The petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings against him by invoking the power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code).

3. The material averments in the first information statement given to the police by the first respondent are as follows:

The first respondent had got acquainted with the petitioner through facebook. She was in love with the petitioner. He had promised her that he would marry her. On 14.12.2014, she reached Coimbatore at the request of the petitioner. They went together to Ootty and took a room in a lodge there and stayed there till 17.12.2014. During this period, the petitioner had sexual intercourse with her several times against her will. On 17.12.2014, they returned to Coimbatore and resided there. On 18.12.2014, they reached Kollam and the petitioner took her to the house of his relative. On 19.12.2014, the relatives of the petitioner came there and threatened her. Apprehending that they would cause harm to her, she escaped from there and reached the house of the sister of her father and resided there. She reported the matter to the police on 20.12.2014.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and also the learned counsel for the first respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the first respondent submitted that the petitioner has married the first respondent and they are now living together and leading a happy married life. Learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the first respondent has got no grievance against the petitioner and there is no objection to quash the proceedings against him. The first respondent has filed an affidavit to that effect. Further, the petitioner and the first respondent have together filed an application to compound the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner.

6. Annexure-2 is the copy of the marriage certificate. It shows that the marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent was solemnized on 30.01.2015 under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.

7. The question arises whether the prosecution against the petitioner for committing an offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. can be quashed on the ground that the parties have compromised and settled the matter and that the petitioner has married the victim of the offence.

8. In Shimbhu vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2014 SC 739, the Apex Court has held as follows:

“Further, a compromise entered into between the parties cannot be construed as a leading factor based on which lesser punishment can be awarded. Rape is a non-compoundable offence and it is an offence against the society and is not a matter to be left for the parties to compromise and settle. Since the Court cannot always be assured that the consent given by the victim in compromising the case is a genuine consent, there is every chance that she might have been pressurized by the convicts or the trauma undergone by her all the years might have compelled her to opt for a compromise. In fact, accepting this proposition will put an additional burden on the victim. The accused ma