IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH MONDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022/ 2ND PHALGUNA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 3693 OF 2021 PETITIONER:

PRADEEP M.P @ MANU AGED 36 YEARS S/O PEETHAMBARAN, MANGALASSERIL (H), SEETHATHODE P.O.AND VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 667.

BY ADVS.

MANU RAMACHANDRAN M.KIRANLAL R.RAJESH T.S.SARATH SAMEER M NAIR RESPONDENTS:

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MOOZHIYAR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 662.

3 VICTIM xxx R1 & R2 BY SRI.SANGEETHA RAJ Public Prosecutor THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This writ petition has been filed to quash all further proceedings in Crime No.303 of 2020 of Moozhiyar Police Station, Pathanamthitta.

2. The petitioner is the accused. The 3^rd respondent is the victim. The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 342, 354C, 366, 376(2)(n)

of the IPC and 119(b) of the Kerala Police Act.

3. The 3^rd respondent is a nursing student. The petitioner is a close friend of the father of the 3^rd respondent. Admittedly, the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent were known to each other. According to the 3^rd respondent, on 14.4.2020, the petitioner sent an SMS to her mobile phone. Thereafter, they started to interact with each other and they fell in love. It is the case of the 3^rd respondent that the petitioner agreed to marry her. According to the prosecution, at the instance of the petitioner, the 3^rd respondent went to a quarantine centre at Nilakkal, Angamoozhy for duty. The petitioner was also at the quarantine centre for duty. It is alleged that, on 27.5.2020, the petitioner forcefully caught hold of the 3^rd respondent and took their photographs. It is further alleged that, while undergoing quarantine in the same centre from 18.6.2020 to 1.7.2020, they had sexual intercourse several times on a promise of marriage given by the petitioner and further the petitioner copied the image of their sexual act in his mobile phone. This is the sum and substance of the prosecution allegation.

4. Even though notice has been issued to the 3^rd respondent, there is no appearance. I have heard Sri.Manu Ramachandran, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Sangeetha Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, even if the entire allegations in the First Information Statement are taken at its face value, they do not constitute the offences alleged against the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that initiation of the proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but malicious act. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, prima facie, the offences alleged against the petitioner are made out and, hence, there is no justification in invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. I have gone through the FIS in detail. The alleged occurrence had taken place at the quarantine centre for the period from 18.6.2020 to 1.7.2020. Admittedly, both of them were at the quarantine centre during the said period. Even according to the 3^rd respondent they were in love prior to that and she went to the quarantine centre voluntarily of her own volition. Thus, I am of the view that neither Section 342 of the IPC nor Section 366 of the IPC would get attracted. A reading of FIS would show that there is no wrongful confinement and there is no abduction or kidnapping as such so as to attract either of the above Sections.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that, even if the case of the 3^rd respondent is believed to be true, it was nothing but a case of consensual sex and, as such, Section 376(2)(n) or Section 354C of the IPC is attracted. It is settled that, if a man retracts from his promise to