Marriage between parties and mutual settlement can lead to the quashing of criminal proceedings in certain cases.

O R D E R

This Crl.M.C. has been filed seeking to quash the entire proceedings against the petitioner/accused in crime No.569/2018 of Perinthalmanna Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Section 363 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 r/w. 3(a) of Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences Act , 2012, which is now pending as S.C.No.279/2020 on the file of Fast Track Special Court, Perinthalmanna.

2. Petitioner is the sole accused in the above crime. The prosecution allegation is that the accused with the intention to subject the defacto complainant to sexual intercourse on 18.06.2018 abducted her from the front of Moulana Hospital, Perinthalmanna without the permission or consent of guardians of the victim on KL 10 AW 6849 scooter and took her to the house of CW3 at Eranad Taluk, Puthiyangadi and thereafter committed rape upon her and thereby committed the offences aforementioned.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner and the 3rd respondent - defacto complainant were in love and after the registration of the crime they got married with the blessings of both families. The petitioner produced the marriage certificate as Annexure A2, which would go to show that the petitioner married the defacto complainant on 19.09.2019. Annexure A3 is the affidavit sworn in by the 3rd respondent – defacto complainant.

4. Adv.Sri. Niyas Mohammed appeared on behalf of the

3rd respondent - defacto complainant and reports about the marriage in between the parties.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor produced the report of the SHO, Perinthalmanna, along with the copy of the statement of the victim as well as the copy of the marriage certificate.

6. In Annexure A3 affidavit, 3rd respondent categorically stated that the complaint was filed out of some misunderstanding and the entire dispute has been settled and they are married also and she has no surviving grievance against the petitioner. She also does not want to prosecute the matter further against the petitioner. In the statement given to the SHO, it is stated that a nine month old girl child has also born out of their wedlock.

7. It has come out that the petitioner married the defacto complainant subsequently and they are presently living together as husband and wife with their nine month old girl child. So continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner would definitely affect the peaceful life. It is relevant in this context to quote the decision of this Court inAshiq v. State of Kerala [2019(2) KLT 1130] , wherein this Court had an occasion to consider an identical situation and held that when parties have amicably settled the matter and the petitioner married the victim girl, for the ends of substantial justice, it will be necessary to quash the proceedings.

8. It is also relevant in this context to quote judgment in Crl.A.No.1740/2019 [ Saju P.R. v. State of Kerala ] wherein the Apex Court while considering an identical situation of a case involving Section 376 of IPC has held that on the basis of affidavit filed by the complainant and other materials on record, it would be proper to quash the criminal proceedings pending against the accused for doing complete justice to the parties concerned and accordingly, a Crl.M.C. which was dismissed by this Court on the ground that offence involved is one under of was ultimately allowed by the Apex Court.

9. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Denu P.

Thampi v. Ms.X [2019 (3) KHC 199] also had occasion to consider in a situation, where a case involving 376 of IPC , has been quashed in view of the subsequent settlement and marriage between the victim and the accused.

10. In the above backdrop, since the petitioner and the defacto complainant have already married and are living together as husband and wife, I am of the view that it would be just and proper for doing complete justice to the parties to quash the entire proceedings pending against the petitioner in this case.

In the resul