Published on: October 8, 2022 at 20:17 IST
On Thursday, the Kerala High Court recapitulated the ruling that said that if consensual sex between a couple continues taking place even after the woman knowing that her consent had been gained on false pretext by the man, it will not constitute to rape.
The Court thus quashed the case against a 33-year-old man where the accused and the plaintiff had been consensual about their relationship and that there was deceive.
Justice Kauser Edappagath added that, “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 [First Information Statement] are accepted in totality, no offence u/s 375 of IPC has been made out.”
The FIR was registered u/s 376, 406 and 420 of the IPC.
The allegations in the FIR ranged from the year 2010 to March 2019 where the accused had sexual relationship with the complainant on pretext of marriage, in India and overseas.
The accused was already married and this came to the view of the complainant in 2013-14, but was told by the accused that he lived separately since four months and was heading towards divorce.
Counsels for the accused, Senior Advocate P. Vijaya Bhanu, and Advocates Lal K. Joseph, A.A. Ziyad Rahman, Suresh Sukumar, and V.S. Shiraz Bava contended that the criminal proceedings initiated against him were malicious and had a hidden ulterior motive and that, the allegations did not constitute to prima facie any offence.
The respondent’s counsels Government Pleader T.V. Neema, Senior Advocate S. Sreekumar, and Advocates M.B. Shyni and Deepak Raj contended that the submissions by the complainant had clear signs of sexual assaults and that proceedings u/s 482 Cr.PC not be quashed.
The Public Prosecutor has added that the jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.PC cannot be made out once all the ingredients of the alleged offences are attracted.
The Court, on observing the FIS and her s.161 and s. 164 Cr.PC allegations, said, “the allegation of sexual intercourse allegedly had between the petitioner and the 4th respondent is so vague”.
The Court added the lack of crucial details attached with the sites of sexual harassments at her house in Abu Dhabi and his residence in Chennai or other mentioned places.
The woman could also not support her argument with the room number of the Hotel of sexual harassment encounter upon interrogation.
The accused and the woman admitted to a consensual relationship and observing this, the court took note that the accused person’s parents had met the woman’s parents for discussion of a marriage proposal, resulting her in a withdrawal of marriage after knowledge of his having relationships with some other women.
The Court conclusively said, “…It is apparent that the petitioner had no mala fide intention or clandestine motives to conduct the alleged rape under the pretext of marriage.
Further, even as per the allegations, it is evident that the marriage could not be materialized as the 4th respondent withdrew from the marriage, doubting the petitioner’s morality and on account of other unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner.”
The Court ruled the allegations as vague and baseless, negating the attraction of Sections 409 and 420 IPC and remarked, “The only allegation in the FIS is that the petitioner has obtained a total sum of Rs 15,00,000/- and five sovereigns of gold ornaments giving a false promise of marriage. There is no allegation that there was an intention to deceive on the part of the petitioner at the time of handing over the money and gold ornaments.”
Thus, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner accused.