ORDER

Dated : 9th December, 2021

1. Petitioner is the sole accused in S.C.230/2020 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Court (Ad hoc-I), PoCSO Act cases, Kalpetta which arises out of Crime No.282/2019 of the Vythiri police station, Wayanad.

2. It is alleged that the petitioner/accused upon promise of marriage, had taken the 3rd respondent to an apartment at Lakkidy on 21.12.2018 and had subjected the victim to sexual intercourse and thereafter, on 31.12.2018 repeated the sexual assault from a lodge at Kondotty and later on 29.1.2019 3rd respondent was again sexually assaulted by the petitioner from a resort at Vythiri and thus committed the offences punishable under Sections 366, 370, 376(2)(n) and

506 IPC.

3. According to the petitioner, he had amicably settled the matter with the victim and he had married the victim.

4. Adv.K.S.Praveen appeared on behalf of the de facto complainant, the victim, and he also reports about the settlement of entire issues between the petitioner and the de facto complainant.

5. The learned public prosecutor produced statement of facts along with the statement of the victim. Annexure-A is the copy of the final report, Annexure-B is the certificate of marriage issued by the Marriage Officer, Pulpally.

6. It has come out from Annexure-C affidavit as well as the signed statement of the victim that presently petitioner and the de facto complainant are living together as husband and wife. Annexure-B certificate of marriage will prove that their marriage was on 5.11.2019.

7. In this context it is relevant to quote Ashiq 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 Section 376 of IPC was ultimately allowed by the Apex Court.

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

Ms.X and Another [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. It has come out that crime against the petitioner was registered on a complaint of committing sexual assault upon the minor victim on a promise of marriage. Subsequently petitioner married the victim. It would prove that, promise was not false and they are now living a happy married life.

11. In the above backdrop, 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 S.C.230/2020 on the file oif Additional Distrit and Sessions Court (Ad hoc-I), PoCSO Act cases, Kalpetta which arises out of Crime No.282/2019 of Vythiri police station, Wayanad.

Ordered accordingly.