IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to examine if a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and instituted maliciously with ulterior motives, and the circumstances under which criminal proceedings can be quashed.

ORDER :

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash all further proceedings as per Annexure 2 Final Report, now pending as S.C.No.1207/2023 on the files of the Special Court for the Trial of Cases Relating to the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, ‘the PoCSO Act’ hereinafter), Ernakulam, arose out of Crime No.519/2022 of Aluva West Police Station (Alangad), Ernakulam.

2. In this matter, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 376(2) (n), 420 and 506 of the IPC, by the accused. The prosecution allegation is that, the accused herein, with intention to commit rape on the de facto complainant, so as to satisfy his lust and also with intention to misappropriate money belonged to the de facto complainant, subjected the de facto complainant to rape in between 1.8.2018 to 17.8.2022, at various places. Further, the accused promised to marry the de facto complainant and borrowed money from her. Thereafter, the accused deviated from marriage and also failed to give money. Further, the de facto complainant was threatened by the accused. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of the above offences.

3. While seeking quashment of the proceedings, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, now, the de facto complainant filed affidavit, in view of settlement in between the accused and the de facto complainant, stating that she had no grievance in this matter. Apart from that, the learned counsel also argued that that, going by the prosecution allegation, at par with the materials available, there is nothing available to see that the accused herein committed rape against the de facto complainant and the case itself is generated, when a crime was registered against the de facto complainant at the instance of the wife of the accused and non-payment of some money alleged to be borrowed by the accused from the de facto complainant in time. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out Annexure 5 Final Report in Crime No.912/2022 of North Parur Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 451, 324 and 294(b) of the IPC, by the de facto complainant herein, dated 16.8.2022. He also placed Annexure 3 agreement executed in between the de facto complainant and the accused on 23.5.2022, whereby, the accused obtained Rs.25 Lakh for his personal need during 2018-2020 period and for which, the accused agreed to sell his property as stated in Annexure 3 agreement with 1300 sq.ft two storied building therein, after clearing the loan liability subsisting with the Bank.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, this case was foisted after registering crime against the de facto complainant and when she noticed delay in getting back the money or the property, as agreed in Annexure 3 agreement. He also argued that, if at all there was sexual relationship, the same is absolutely the outcome of consent and therefore, no offence would attract. He also submitted that the accused is a married person, having wife and children and Annexure 2 Final Report is the outcome of complaint lodged by the wife of the accused.

5. Resisting this argument, the learned Public Prosecutor argued that the points argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner are squarely insufficient to quash the prosecution involving offence under Section 376 of the IPC, as the same is impermissible.

6. It is true that offence under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC, is a serious offence warranting punishment upto life imprisonment and in such cases, merely acting on the affidavit filed by the de facto complainant or on the so-called consent extracted from the circumstances, which would require proof by evidence, case could not be quashed. However, the same is not a hard and fast rule to apply in almost all cases, where offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC is alleged without supp