IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that allegations of sexual assault must be substantiated by credible evidence and timely reporting, and that proceedings can be quashed if they are found to be initiated with ulterior motives.

ORDER :

BADHARUDEEN, J.

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed by the sole accused in Crime No.768/2019 of Karunagappally Police Station, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking the following reliefs:

“i) Call for the records leading to Annexure A1 Final Report,

ii) Quash Annexure A1 Final Report in Crime No.768/2019 of Karunagappally Police Station filed before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally,

iii) Stay all further proceedings in Annexure A1 Final Report in Crime No.768/2019 of Karunagappally Police Station.

iv) Grant such other reliefs which deem fit and proper in the nature 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.

3. I have perused the records.

4. In a nut shell, the prosecution allegation is that, on 31.01.2019, while the defacto complainant was staying at the house of the accused, at night and when she hardly slept after taking a tablet for fever, during mid night, the accused herein reached her bed room and subjected her to sexual intercourse. Accordingly, the prosecution alleges offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short).

5. While seeking quashment of the proceedings, the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly urged that the entire case is foisted without any bona fides. The learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out the long delay in lodging the FIR and the attending circumstances. The learned counsel also took attention of this Court to various documents, including Annexures A1 to A10 produced. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defacto complainant is a lady, who used to file complaints against persons with ulterior motives, and in this connection, he took attention of this Court to Annexure A7 report dated 02.07.2019 filed by the Station House Officer, Anchalummoodu Police Station, before this Court in W.P(c).No.15956/2019, when she sought police protection in the said Writ Petition. The learned counsel for the accused/petitioner argued that going by Annexure A7 report, the tendency of the defacto complainant to implicate those who stand against her whip could be gathered. He also pointed out that even though this incident happened on 31.01.2019, FIS was registered only on 13.05.2019, after a long delay of about 3 ½ months. It is argued further that as on 04.05.2019 the defacto complainant filed a complaint before the Circle Inspector of Police, Anchalummoodu Police Station, arraying the petitioner and one Ambika, as respondents, raising certain allegations against them. But in Annexure A4 complaint, no overt acts disclosing the allegation of rape stated. Thereafter, Smt.Ambika, who was arrayed as the 2nd respondent in Annexure A4, filed a complaint before the Circle Inspector of Police, Kundara Police Station and accordingly Annexure A5 Crime No.1114/2019 Kundara Police Station was registered against the defacto complainant. As a counter blast, the present crime was registered.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant pointed out Annexure-A8 report at the instance of the Council for Various Human Rights Organization raising unnecessary allegations against the petitioner and also submitted that the prosecution case is well made out, prima facie, and therefore, the quashment sought for is liable to fail and the matter would require trial.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor also supported the argument of the learned counsel for the defacto complainant, while opposing quashment of this proceedings..

8. I have gone through the FIS produced as Annexure A2 lodged on 13.05.2019. As per Annexure A2, occurrence of rape at the instance of the petitioner herein on 31.01.2019 at the residence of the petitioner is alleged. In the FIS, containing 10 pages, the defacto complainant stated many things. The summary of the allegations is that the defacto complainant had been