ORDER

DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021 Heard Adv. Sasthamangalam S. Ajithkumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well the 2nd respondent, party-in-person, and the learned Public Prosecutor.

2. The petitioner, who is the 2nd accused in S.C. No. 56 of 2019 now pending before the 1st Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam has approached this Court seeking to quash Annexure 1 final report in Crime No. 1414 of 2013 of Changanacherry Police Station and Annexure 2 Court Charge in the case. Earlier the case was pending before the Additional District and Sessions Court-II,(Special), Kottayam as S.C. No. 153 of 2016. The case was transferred to the Sessions Division, Ernakulam and now pending as S.C. No. 56 of 2019. The crime was registered by the Changanassery police as No. 1414 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 377, 506(1) and 34 of Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution allegation is that under a false promise to marry the 2nd respondent, the 1st accused had sexual intercourse with her forcefully on 01.12.2011 at her residence and thereafter took her to Bangalore and then to his residence and had forceful sexual intercourse and unnatural sexual intercourse with her several times. Later, he had withdrawn from the promise to marry and on 05.12.2012 the 1st accused and this petitioner, the 2nd accused threatened her that if she discloses anything about the relationship, they will kill her and thereby committed the alleged offences.

4. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that she being the 2nd accused and the mother of 1st accused, there is no allegation of rape under Section 376 of IPC against her. But, the only offence alleged against her by the prosecution is under Section 506(1) of IPC. The court has mistakenly framed charge for three distinct offences against the petitioner even though an independent offence has been alleged against her by the prosecution. Since she has been charged under Section 506(1) read with 34 IPC, her case has to be tried separately before a Magistrate Court and not before the Sessions Court along with the 1st accused is the main grievance projected by her before this Court. Hence, this petition to quash the final report submitted by the prosecution and the court charge framed against her in the case.

5. The 2nd respondent stoutly opposed the application contending that the 1st prayer sought for by the petitioner had already been considered by this Court and it was dismissed as per an order dated 20.11.2020 in Crl.M.C. No 7833 of

2017. The 2nd prayer has also been dismissed by this Court in the revision petition filed before this Court as Crl.Rev.Pet. No.1231 of 2018 and now the reliefs sought for by the petitioner to set aside the charge framed against her and to quash the final report are not maintainable. This respondent has also pointed out that the charge was framed on 27.07.2018. But it was not challenged within a period of 60 days of framing of charge and the petitioner has come up before this Court after three years of framing the charge. Hence the petition is only to be dismissed.

6. The petitioner is the mother of the 1st accused. As referred above he has been charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 376, 377 and 506(1) read with 34 IPC. But against this petitioner, the offence alleged is only to the effect that she had intimidated the defacto complainant along with the 1st accused. It is pertinent to note that this petitioner, as early as in the year 2017, has filed Crl.M.C. No. 7833 of 2017 before this Court challenging the final report submitted by the investigating agency with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings as against her. A learned Judge of this Court by an order dated 20.11.2020, after hearing both sides, dismissed the petition on the finding that there is no merit in the petition submitted by this petitioner. Annexure R2 (a) is the order in Crl.M.C. No. 7833 of 2017 In that Crl.M.C. she has contended