The Kerala High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous case and quashed proceedings for rape in promise to marry. The court held acts were consensual between adults, finding no cheating or malafide intent upon examining circumstances and victim settlement.
Crl.M.C. allowed. All further proceedings in SC.No.184/2017 and Crime No.563/2016 quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 367 of 2018
PENDING AS C 184/2017 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-I, MANJERI
CRIME NO. 563/2016 OF MANJERI POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED
NASARUDHEEN P., S/O.MOOSA, PARAKKAL HOUSE, 22 MILE, MANJERI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV.SRI.K.RAKESH
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/VICTIM:
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031FOR THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANJERI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
2. MUBASHEERA T., D/O. ALAVAI (VICTIM) MELEKANDI HOUSE, PULLARA, POOKKOTTUR, VALLUVAMBRAM, ERNAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 517.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.PRAVEEN R1 BY SMT.M.K.PUSPALATHA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-04-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 367 of 2018 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE 161 STATEMENT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED, 11.8.2016.
ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT/CHARGE IN CRIME NO.563/2016 OF THE MANJERI POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED, 21.11.2017.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL
R.AV
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
SUNIL THOMAS, J
Crl.M.C.No.367 of 2018
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2018
ORDER
The petitioner herein, is the sole accused in Crime No.563/2016 of Manjeri police station, Malappuram District, for the offence punishable under section 376(2) (n) of the Indian Penal Code.
complainant alleged that the petitioner herein had promised to marry her and on 2.9.2014, he had physical relationship with her on a promise to marry. Thereafter, it was repeated on 8.8.2016. Since he allegedly retracted from the promise, complaint was laid and crime was registered. After investigation, final report was laid and the matter is now pending as SC.No.184/2017 of Additional Sessions Court-I, Manjeri.
Crl.M.C.No.367 of 2018
2
court contending that the disputes between the parties are stated to have been settled and the second respondent has married another person. It is stated that the pendency of prosecution has revealed that it would affect her matrimonial life. It is also stated that petitioner has also married another woman. The petitioner relied on Annexure-C affidavit, affirmed by the defacto complainant, wherein she has stated that the entire disputes between the petitioner and the defacto complainant has been settled. She has no objection in quashing the proceedings. The learned counsel for the second respondent acknowledged the execution of the document and submitted that she has no objection in quashing the proceedings. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions, submitted that the disputes have been settled and the statement of the defacto complainant has been recorded.
Crl.M.C.No.367 of 2018
3
herein is serious and one which can not be compounded on consent between the parties, the learned counsel for the petitioner chose to argue the matter on merits also.
Crl.M.C.No.367 of 2018
4
the inception itself, the petitioner herein, had an intention to cheat. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though there was a promise to marry, he had forward with the matrimonial proposal. But it was not successful because of the resistance of the family members of the defacto complainant. According to the counsel, there is no ingredient of a malafide motive even at the time of commencement of their relationship. This is clear from the fact that even the statement of the victim shows that the petitioner herein, left Gulf countries on 3rd September, 2017. Mother, father and relatives of the defacto complainant had met the relatives of the petitioner herein, and there was a proposal of a marriage. It did not take place since the amount demanded by the family members of the petitioner could not be given. It clearly shows that there were certain attempts from the sides of parties to proceed
Crl.M.C.No.367 of 2018
5
with the matrimonial relationship. It was not successful due to some other reasons.
Crl.M.C.No.367 of 2018
6
above, clearly shows that the defacto complainant was voluntarily with him though she has a specific case that the petitioner herein had a forceful rape of her. From the circumstances available it appears to be highly unbelievable. The very fact that the petitioner herein has given access to her room at her house clearly shows that it could not have been forceful one especially during night. She had voluntarily gone to a hotel. Having considered these facts, the physical relationship between the parties can only be consensual one entered into between two persons having attained the age of majority. In the light of these facts, applying the principles laid by the Supreme Court in Uday Vs State of Karnataka (2003) 4 SCC 46, Deelip Singh V State of Bihar (2005) 1 SCC 88 and also the decision reported in Kaini Rajan V State of Kerala (2013) 9 SCC 113, I am inclined to hold that the offence under section 376
Crl.M.C.No.367 of 2018
7
IPC will not lie.
Accordingly, Crl.M.C is allowed. All further proceedings in SC.No.184/2017 of Additional Sessions Court-I, Manjeri, in Crime No.563/2016 of Manjeri Police Station, will stand quashed.
Sd/- SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE
R.AV
//True Copy//
PA to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed when the prosecution is based on consensual acts between adults and the parties have settled their disputes.
Whether the evidence discloses ingredients of cheating or amounts to consensual sexual relations.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Uday Vs State of KarnatakaApplied¶52
_Uday Vs State of Karnataka (2003) 4 SCC 46_ · Who else cites this
Deelip Singh V State of BiharApplied¶52
_Deelip Singh V State of Bihar (2005) 1 SCC 88_ · Who else cites this
Kaini Rajan V State of KeralaApplied¶52
_Kaini Rajan V State of Kerala (2013) 9 SCC 113_ · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Nasarudheen P.
The State of Kerala
Mubasheera T.
Sunil Thomas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
