Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Kerala High Court dismissed a plea to quash proceedings in a rape case involving allegations that the accused established a physical relationship with the complainant based on a false promise of marriage but thereafter married another woman.

A Single judge bench of Justice A. Badharudeen, delivered the decision while hearing the petition filed by the accused, seeking to quash the case against him. The case was initiated after the complainant alleged that the accused had induced her into a physical relationship by promising marriage.

According to the prosecution, the accused and the complainant were in a romantic relationship and the same had been informed to their families, and there was an agreement to solemnize the marriage. The accused allegedly tied a ‘thali’ (a symbolic marriage act) in front of a temple in Thrissur and then persuaded the complainant to stay at a lodge, where he engaged in sexual intercourse with her, having first given her alcohol. The prosecution further stated that the accused continued the relationship and the sexual acts on multiple occasions, always under the pretext of an impending marriage. Later, when the complainant sought time to continue her studies, the accused pressured her to marry immediately. However, he soon left, stating that he would not wait any longer. In April 2021, the complainant learned that the accused had arranged to marry another woman, a marriage that was eventually solemnized on July 14, 2022. The complainant filed a police complaint, leading to the present charges under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The petitioner expressed that he had always been willing to marry the complainant, but the delay was due to the complainant and her mother seeking more time. According to the defence, the decision not to proceed with the marriage was not a false promise at the inception but arose later due to circumstances. Furthermore, the petitioner claimed that the complainant was aware of his impending marriage to another woman as early as April 2021, yet chose not to file a complaint until April 2023.

The contention of the accused was, however, opposed by the prosecution arguing that the accused had lured the complainant into a physical relationship solely on the promise of marriage, which was later breached when he married another woman. It was alleged that the complainant’s consent was obtained under a false pretext, which constitutes a criminal act under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC. The Public Prosecutor supported this stance, emphasising that issues related to consent and intent must be examined through evidence during the trial, and quashing the case at this stage would be inappropriate.

The court noted that while the accused claimed readiness to marry, his conducted reflected otherwise. “it could not be held that the readiness shown by the accused/petitioner to marry the defacto complainant is bonafide and in fact, he made use of as an opportunity to leave the defacto complainant and to marry another lady,” the court stated.

Given this context, the court held that the issue of consent, in this case, is a matter to be determined by trial and cannot be addressed in a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

As a result, the court rejected the petition stating that “this petition would necessarily fail.”

 

Cause Title: XXXXXXXXXX v State of Kerala [CRL.MC NO. 7742 OF 2023]

Appearances : Advocate Vivek Venugopal for the petitioner/ accused; and Advocate Aneesh K.R (for the complainant) and Senior Public Prosecutor Renjit George (for the State)