Judicial Process Cannot Be Used for Vengeance: Kerala HC Quashes Sexual Assault Case Filed After Divorce

The Kerala High Court on October 25, 2025, quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused of raping his former wife nearly eight years prior, ruling that the prosecution lacked medical or corroborative evidence and that the complaint appeared to have been filed with a vindictive motive after their divorce.

Justice C. Pratheep Kumar allowed the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Crl.M.C. No. 4690 of 2022, observing that continuing such a prosecution would constitute an abuse of judicial process.

The case arose from Crime No. 473 of 2021 registered at the Thadiyittaparambu Police Station, Ernakulam. The prosecution alleged that in August 2013, the accused had forcibly taken the de facto complainant, then a 17 year old girl, to a vacant plot near Attupadi–Chiravakkad road and committed rape, followed by other acts of sexual assault on multiple occasions.

He was charged under Sections 363, 366, 370, 354A(1), and 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code and relevant provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO).

The accused, represented by Advocate P.M. Ziraj, sought to quash the proceedings, contending that the allegations were fabricated and motivated by malice following the breakdown of his marriage with the complainant.

The petitioner pointed out that the complaint was filed in July 2021, eight years after the alleged incident, and only after multiple criminal and domestic disputes between the couple had already been settled. He argued that the complaint was a retaliatory move intended to harass him.

The Court noted that the complainant and the accused had married on March 8, 2020, and divorced on March 12, 2021, by pronouncement of talaq. During their short lived marriage, the complainant had filed two criminal cases under Section 498A of the IPC and a domestic violence petition, all of which were later settled amicably before the Lok Adalat in early 2021.

The Court observed that only after these proceedings were quashed and the parties separated did the complainant file a private complaint alleging rape dating back to 2013 and 2014.

The complaint claimed that while studying in the 7th standard, the complainant, then a minor, was approached by the accused, who professed love and promised marriage. It alleged that on August 10, 2013, he took her to a vacant land and committed rape, and that further sexual acts occurred at various locations, including the terrace of a shopping complex and hotel rooms in Munnar and Adimaly.

The complaint also alleged that the accused accepted Rs. 6 lakh from her and failed to return Rs. 2.65 lakh.

The Court found that the eight year delay in reporting the alleged offence was wholly unexplained. It noted that the complainant’s own version admitted that she continued to meet the accused even after attaining majority and later married him, which weakened the allegation of non-consensual acts.

It observed that the police investigation had revealed no medical or forensic evidence to corroborate the allegations.

Justice Pratheep Kumar also took note of contradictions between the complaint and witness statements. The complainant had alleged that on January 30, 2014, the accused sexually assaulted her on the terrace of a shopping complex and was seen by a witness (CW1). However, CW1, in his statement under Section 164 CrPC, denied having seen such an incident.

The investigation further revealed that the accused was attending school until 4:00 p.m. on the same day, establishing that the alleged incident could not have occurred as claimed.

The Court held that with one of the two specific incidents proved false and no independent or medical evidence to substantiate the rest, the allegations were unreliable. It emphasized that courts must guard against misuse of criminal law in matrimonial or post-divorce disputes.

The judgment observed that “a complaint filed after several years of silence, without convincing explanation, and following the settlement of earlier disputes, bears the mark of an afterthought intended to wreak vengeance.”

The Bench concluded that allowing the case to proceed would amount to harassment and misuse of judicial machinery. Citing the settled principle that criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to continue when the allegations are inherently improbable or motivated, the Court held that the complaint was an abuse of process.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and quashed all further proceedings in S.C. No. 6 of 2022 arising out of Crime No. 473 of 2021 before the Fast Track Special Court, Perumbavoor.

Case title: Crl.M.C. No. 4690 of 2022 (Crime No. 473 of 2021, Thadiyittaparambu Police Station)

Bench: Justice C. Pratheep Kumar

Date of judgment: October 25, 2025