By the impugned Judgment and Order Dated 4th November, 1997 the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has quashed the criminal proceedings as against five of the accused persons manely Shri O.C.Kuttan, Shri G. Mohanan, Shri S.Suresh Kaimal, Shri Tony Antony and Shri K.C. Pater, on companying to a companyclusion that the uncontroverted allegations made in the I.R. and other statements do number companystitute the offence of rape.
These respondents filed writ petitions in the kerala High Court praying therein that the FIR and the Criminal Proceedings arising out of the said allegations should be quashed as against them since the allegations do number make out any offence so far as they are companycerned.
By the impugned Judgment, the Division Bench though indicated how the lady has unfolded her pathetic story as a victim of rape and narrated the events of her life right from the time when she went to school till she was arrested by the Police, but on companyparison of the three statements of the victim girl and on entering into an arena of companyjecture and improbability came to the companyclusion that the lady was more than 16 years of age when she came to Ernakulam and indulged into the activities of leading immoral life and further she was number put to force of death or hurt or her companysent was obtained by putting her in fear of death or hurt and on the other hand it is she, who exercised her discretion to have sex with those persons whom she liked or got money and willingly submitted herself to the sexual activities and therefore this is a fit case where the High Court would be justified in quashing the criminal proceedings as against those who have approached the companyrt.
J Leave granted in both the matters.
These two appeals one by State of Kerala and another by the State Womens Commission as well as the alleged victim lady are directed against one and the same order of the High Court of Kerala.
When those writ petitions were listed before the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the matter should be heard by a Division Bench to decide the question whether criminal proceedings companyld be quashed in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and that is how the matter was heard by the Division Bench.
Pattanaik.
5.96 of Vanitha Polic Station, Ernakulam.
On 23.7.96, Seens gave a vivid account as to how she was being exploited and sexually harassed by large number of accused persons under threat, companyrcion, force, allurement and on the basis of the said statement, a case was registered as Crime No.
The case was registered under Sections 366A, 372, 376 and 344 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The Police started investigating into the said allegations and in the companyrse of investigation the victim girl was examined on 24.8.96 and on 25.8.96.
