O R D E R

Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.25/2020 of Medical College Police Station, Thrissur, charged under Sections 4, 3A, 6, 5l of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 376(2)(n), 450 and 363 of IPC. This Crl.M.C has been filed seeking to quash further proceedings in the above said case.

2. It is alleged that one day in December, 2018 at 10 a.m till 13.01.2020 the petitioner/accused who had been in love with the victim used to have sexual intercourse with her at her house while she was alone. It is also alleged that he used to take her to his house at Mundur and subjected her to sexual intercourse, who was a minor girl and thereby accused committed the offences aforementioned.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner and the victim girl had been in love for the last two years and subsequent to the registration of the crime he married the victim under the Special Marriage Act since they belong to different religion. Annexure B is the certificate of marriage dated 08.7.2020 issued by the Marriage Officer, Mundur, which would go to show that the marriage of the petitioner and the victim was registered as per the Special Marriage Act on 08.07.2020. Annexure A is the copy of FIR. Annexure C is the affidavit sworn in by the 2nd respondent – victim.

4. Adv. Sri. Unni Sebastian Kappen appeared on behalf of the 2nd respondent and reported about the marriage as well as the subsequent settlement of the matter between the parties.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor filed report of the Sub Inspector of Police, Woman Police Station, Thrissur City along with signed statement of the defacto complainant.

6. It has come out from Annexure B - copy of certificate of marriage of the petitioner and the defacto complainant - 2nd respondent that the petitioner married the defacto complainant on 08.07.2020. Annexure C is the affidavit sworn in by the defacto complainant. It has come out from the affidavit as well as the copy of the signed statement of the defacto complainant that the petitioner and the defacto complainant are presently living together as husband and wife and she has no more grievance against the petitioner. A child also born out of their wedlock. 7. It is relevant in this context to quote Freddy @

Antony Francis and Another v. State of Kerala and Another (2017 KHC 344 = 2018 (1) KLD 558), Mohammed Rasal v. State of Kerala and Another (2019 (5) KHC 904 = 2020 (1) KLT 126) and Unni.A. v. State of Kerala and Another (Crl.M.C.2459/2018 dated 8.9.2020). Paragraph No.55 in Gian Singh is relevant in this context to be quoted which reads thus :-

8. Freddy, referred above, was a case registered against the accused under Section 376 IPC and Section 3(1)(XII) of SC/ST Act and during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, accused married the victim and they filed a joint petition to quash the proceedings. So this Court considered the question whether power under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be exercised or not.

Paragraph 9 of the said judgment is relevant which reads thus :

“It is borne out from the statement recorded by the Sub Inspector of Police of the 2nd petitioner that the parties were in love and the Crime was registered when the 2nd petitioner was under the impression that the 1st petitioner would resile from his earlier promise. However, in view of the subsequent turn of events, she has realized that her apprehension was baseless. The parties are living together as husband and wife. There is no case for anyone that the dignity of the 2nd petitioner was violated by a wanton act of the 1st petitioner. This is not one of those cases wherein the allegations reek of extreme deparavity, perversity or cruelty. It cannot be said that the offence in the instant case would fall in the category of offences that have a serious impact on society. In the peculiar facts of the instant case, grave hardship and inconvenience will be caused to the 2nd petitioner, if the prosecution is permitted t