No case of sexual assault/rape as woman knowingly continued relation with married accused: Kerala High Court allows plea to quash case

The Kerala High Court recently allowed a plea filed for quashing a rape case registered against a man. Court observed that the physical relations between the victim and the accused were not on false promise to marry as the victim knew about accused's marriage and still continued the sexual relationship with him.

The bench of Justice Kauser Edaggapath said, “The admitted fact that the 4th respondent is having a relationship with the petitioner since 2010 and she continued the relationship knowing about his marriage from 2013 onwards would nullify the story regarding the sexual intercourse on the false pretext of marrying her. The alleged sex can only be termed as one on account of love and passion for the petitioner and not on account of misrepresentation made to her by the petitioner. Therefore, even if the facts set out in the FIS are accepted in totality, no offence u/s 375 of IPC has been made out.”.

Court observed that if a man retracts his promise to marry a woman, consensual sex they had will not constitute an offence of rape under Section 376 of the IPC unless it is established that the consent for such sexual act was obtained by him by giving false promise of marriage with no intention of being adhered to and that promise made was false to his knowledge.

The prosecution must lead positive evidence to give rise to inference beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had no intention to marry the prosecutrix at all from the very inception," the court added. 

Therefore, stating that the relationship between the accused and the victim in the present case was purely consensual, the court held that no case for an offence of rape under Section 376 was made out against the petitioner. 

The petitioner had been accused of committing offences punishable under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) and 376 (rape) of Indian Penal Code.

The victim had alleged that the accused, by giving a false promise of marriage, had performed sexual intercourse with her in several places in India and abroad and thereby committed the offence of rape.

The vicitm had further alleged that during the period of their good relationship, the petitioner dishonestly induced her to deliver an amount of Rs. 15,00,000 and five sovereigns of gold, thereby committed the offence of cheating and criminal breach by not returning the money and gold.

However, the counsel for the petitioner argued before the high court that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner had been initiated falsely and maliciously with an ulterior motive and not based on real facts.

After perusal of the case diary, court noted that the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of CrPC showed that the petitioner was known to her since August 2010 while she was working as a dance artist in Abu Dhabi Marine Club, UAE and the relationship between them continued till 2019. 

According to her, she came to know about the fact that the petitioner was married in 2013-14 and still continued the relationship and even proposed marriage with him, the court observed. 

Court stressed that firstly the allegations of sexual intercourse allegedly between the petitioner and the victim were vague without any specific dat or place and secondly, it was an admitted fact that the victim had been in a consensual relationship with the accused even after knowing about his marriage.

Moreover, court found that there was no solid evidence on record that the accused committed the offence of cheating and breach of trust with the victim and accordingly held that offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC were also not attracted.

In light of these facts, court held, "I am of the view that no useful purpose will be served by allowing the criminal prosecution against the petitioner to continue. Hence, all further proceedings in Annexure A1 FIR in Crime No.401/2019 of Peramangalam Police Station hereby stand quashed".

Case Title: Sreekanth Sasidharan v State of Kerala & Anr.