Lorris Lal v. State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/19TH POUSHA, 1936 Crl.MC.No. 3485 of 2013 () --------------------------- CRIME NO. 528/2013 OF MATTANCHERRY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT ---------------------- PETITIONER/ACCUSED :
------------------------------------ LORRIS LAL, AGED 26 YEARS S/O. LASER THOMAS, CC-VI/452, ELANJIKKAL HOUSE JEEVAMATHA NAGAR, MATTANCHERRY.
BY ADV. SRI.M.H.HANIS RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :
---------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MATTANCHERRY POLICE STATION ERNAKULAM IN CRIME NO. 528/2013 REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
*ADDL. R2 IMPLEADED ---------------------------------- *ADDL.R2.
SAVITHA THANKAPPAN AGED 25 YEARS, D/O. THANKAPPAN KARIKKAL HOUSE, VADAGERRI KOTTAPADY, KOTHAMANGALAM PIN - 686 691.
*IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL SECOND RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 10TH SEPTEMBER, 2013 IN CRL.M.A. NO. 6727/2013 IN CRL.M.C NO. 3485/2013.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. BINDU GOPINATH ADDL R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.R.VINOD THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/-
Crl.MC.No. 3485 of 2013 () ------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :
--------------------------------------------- ANNEXURE ACERTIFICED COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 528/2013 OF MATTANCHERY POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE BCERTIFIED COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, KOCHI.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL --------------------------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn
K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No.3485 of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of January, 2015
O R D E R
The petitioner who is the accused in crime No.528/2013 of the Mattanchery police station wants to quash the proceedings in it. The allegation against him is that he obtained the consent of the additional second respondent by making a false representation that he would marry her and he had sexual intercourse with her and he has now refused to marry her and has thus committed the offence under Section 376 IPC.
2.
There has been no representation for the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the additional second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3.
The prayer is to quash the FIR. It is submitted that final report has already been filed.
4.
The proceedings are sought to be quashed on different grounds. The first is that no offence is made out. Though the trial court has already framed the charge it is
Crl.M.C.No.3485 of 2013 -2not challenged in this proceedings.
5.
It is stated in the petition that the matter has been settled between the parties. This is opposed by the second respondent, who is the victim in the case. More over, the offence is non-compoundable. The court cannot take notice of the agreement between the parties. 6.
Thus, in any view of the matter, this is not a fit case to favour the petitioner with an order under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed.
Sd/- K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/