IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN WEDNESDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 26TH ASHADHA, 1946 CRL.MC NO. 946 OF 2024 CRIME NO.794/2018 OF NOORANADU POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA IN S.C. NO.1089 OF 2022 OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT, CHENGANNUR PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:

RAJESH GOPALAKRISHNAN AGED 50 YEARS VRINDAVANAM, KEEZHILLAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DIST, PIN - 683541 BY ADVS.

P.CHANDY JOSEPH C.K.VIDYASAGAR RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER NOORNADU POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690504

3 XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX SR PP - RENJITH GEORGE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

02.07.2024, THE COURT ON 17.07.2024 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

“C.R”

ORDER

Dated this the 17^th day of July, 2024 This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C.’ for easy reference), by the petitioner, who is the 2^nd accused in S.C. No.1089/2022 on the files of the Fast Track Special Court, Chengannur, seeking the following relief:

On the grounds enumerated here in above and on other grounds this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash annexure 29 (Final Report submitted by the Nooranadu Police pursuant to Crime No.794/2018 and pending trial before the Fast Track Special Judge, Chengannur as Session's Case No. 1089/2022) and Annexure 32 Court Charge therein dated 26-08-2023.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the prosecution records including the court charge framed in this case placed as Annexure-32 and also gone through the decisions placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner viz. Thota Venkateswaralu v. State of A.P. and Another [2011 KHC 4798 : 2011 (2) KLD 565 : 2011 (9) SCALE 603 : 2011 (3) KLT 909 : AIR 2011 SC 2900 : 2011 (9) SCC 527 : 2011 CriLJ 4925 : 2011 (3) SCC (Cri) 772] and Shajan Theruvath v. State of Kerala and Another [2018 KHC 350 : 2018 (2) KLJ 925 : 2018 (3) KLT SN 8].

3. Scanning the genesis of the prosecution case, the same runs on the premise that, during the Month of May, 2005, 1^st and 2^nd accused after sharing common intention to cheat and defraud the defacto complainant taken her to Muscat with offer to provide a job in Muscat. The specific allegation is that, the 1st accused approached the defacto complainant and offered to provide nursing job to her. Thereafter, she along with the 1^st accused went to Surat in this regard. But, she did not participate any interview there. It is alleged that during her stay in Surat, the 1^st accused subjected the defacto complainant to rape and ill treated her after threatening her. Later, she left Surat and went to Dubai and Kuwait and was employed there for about ten years. Though, she had no connection with the 1^st accused after 2005, on a day during the month of April, 2018 the 1^st accused approached the defacto complainant and offered to provide another job in Muscat. Although, the defacto complainant was not amenable for the suggestion of the 1^st accused, since she had no confidence in him, the defacto complainant agreed for the offer as she had loan arrears to be cleared and she faced recovery proceedings during the relevant time. Thus, because of the compulsion of the 1^st accused, she agreed to go to Muscat. Accordingly, she was given the job of a house maid at the house of the 2^nd accused and she was o Rs.35,000/- as salary.

4. The statement of the defacto complainant further is that, while the defacto complainant had been working as a house maid at the house of the 2^nd accused, the 2^nd accused subjected her to rape on two days during night after threatening her that she was brought in Muscat for the said purpose and the endeavor made by the defacto complainant to rescue herself went in vain. She informed the same to the 1^st accused, but he did not help her