Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Kerala High Court has dismissed a petition, filed by a 59-year-old christian priest, seeking to quash the charge sheet and further proceedings against him in a rape case. The priest allegedly promised to marry the victim after leaving his priesthood and subjected her to repeated sexual intercourse between November 2023 and January 2024.

Justice A. Badharudeen, presiding over the court, found that though the complainant (victim) had been in a relationship with another man and had also delivered a child conceived through that relationship, there was no legal bar on her marrying the accused (petitioner) for the lack of a prior legal marriage. The court noted : “She was given offer of marriage by the accused and on the promise of marriage she was subjected to sexual intercourse and thereafter the accused deviated therefrom.”

According to the complainant's First Information Report (FIR), she had a relationship with another man, with whom she had a child. However, he allegedly abandoned her and married another woman. The complainant then approached the accused, Father Jose Mathai Myladath, for guidance on holy sacrament and baptism for her child. During their interactions, Father Myladath allegedly took her telephone number and later called her to the church, where he forced her into sexual intercourse. Thereafter, the priest was charged under Sections 376 (punishment for rape), 376(2)(n) (repeatedly committing rape on same woman), and 342 (punishment for wrongful confinement) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The petitioner argued that the allegations were false and baseless. It was also highlighted that the complaint herself had previously filed a petition seeking the quashment of proceedings against the accused stating that “she lodged a complaint on sheer misunderstanding and there was no sexual harassment.” It was further pointed out that the complainant also posted a WhatsApp message denying the allegations and that the complaint was lodged with a delay of three and a half months.

On the other hand, the complainant contended that the petition to quash the FIR was filed under duress, after the accused promised to look after her. The complainant also disputed the authenticity of the WhatsApp message stating that it was not authored by her.

The court, after examining the facts and circumstances of the case, observed that “it is discernible that the defacto complainant is a lady, who, in fact, not effected any legal marriage.” The court also found that the accused promised to marry the woman after renouncing his priesthood, and retracted later.

With regards the delay in lodging the FIR, the court stated that the delay in filing the FIR was justified, given the ongoing nature of the relationship. The court also stated that the WhatsApp message’s authenticity required proof as the same was disputed by the complainant.

In light of these observations, the court dismissed the petition, finding prima facie evidence warranting trial, stating that “in such a case, there is no reason to close the proceedings merely on the fact that earlier the defacto complainant filed a petition to quash the crime.”

 

Cause Title: FR. Jose Matahi Myladath v  State of Kerala [Crl.M.C.No.7147/2024]

Representation : Advocates  P.T. Sheejish, P.Sreeram, Harikiran, A.Abdul Rahman, Parvathy S. Manoj, Amrita Safal M. And Yoosuf SafwanT. Ajmal ( for the petitioner).

Public Prosecutor M.P. Prasanth ( for the state) and Advocates Rameez Nooh, K.N.Muhammed Thanveer, Amin Ali Ashraf and Kandampully Rahul (for the complainant)