Single judge quashed proceedings in a case alleging rape and SC/ST atrocities under Section 482 CrPC, holding that the FIR lacked specific allegations of a false promise made in bad faith and noting the dispute was settled via affidavit.
All further proceedings in Crime No.202 of 2020 of Muvattupuzha Police Station 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 DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA,
1944
CRL.MC NO. 2308 OF 2020
CRIME NO.202/2020 OF MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
JOHNSON, AGED 27 YEARS S/O.TOMY, KAYYANIKKUNNEL HOUSE, MUTHALAKKODAM P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM SRI.RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE
RESPONDENTS/STATE, INVESTIGATING OFFICER AND DEFACTO
COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
BY ADVS. SRI.P.G.MANU, SR.P.P SRI.D.KISHORE
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 2308 OF 2020
2
O R D E R
This Crl.M.C has been filed to quash all further proceedings in Crime No.202 of 2020 of Muvattupuzha police station.
3
CRL.MC NO. 2308 OF 2020
376(2)(n) of IPC is made out. If the offence under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC is not made out, the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act shall also not be attracted, submitted the counsel. The learned counsel further submitted that the statement given by the victim would show that the petitioner and the 3rd respondent were in love and the sex they had was consensual in nature and that it was the 3rd respondent who withdrew from the marriage.
4
CRL.MC NO. 2308 OF 2020
together and had consensual sex. There is no specific allegation in the FI statement that the petitioner gave a promise to the 3rd respondent to marry which at the inception was false and based on which the 3rd respondent was induced into the sexual relationship. There is also no allegation in the FI statement that when the petitioner promised to marry the 3rd respondent, it was done in bad faith and with intention to deceive her. The subsequent conduct of the parties also would indicate that the petitioner had no intention to deceive the 3 rd respondent. In the FI statement, the victim stated that her mother was not interested in the marriage and therefore, the marriage has not taken place. The FIS was lodged when the marriage of the petitioner was fixed with another lady. It is trite that if a man retracts from his promise to marry a woman, consensual sex they had would not constitute an offence of rape under Section 376 of IPC unless it is established that the consent fo r such sexual act was obtained by him by giving a false promise of marriage with no intention of being adhered to and that promise made was false to his knowledge. As stated above, according to the 3rd respondent, her mother was not interested in the marriage. Hence, the basic ingredients of Section 376 of IPC have not been attracted. That apart, the affidavit sworn in by the 3rd respondent would show that the
5
CRL.MC NO. 2308 OF 2020
entire dispute between the parties has been settled and she does not want to proceed with the case further.
In the light of the above findings, I am of the view that no purpose will be served by allowing the criminal prosecution against the petitioner to continue. Hence, all further proceedings in Crime No.202 of 2020 of Muvattupuzha police station hereby stands quashed.
Crl.M.C is allowed.
Sd/- DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE
AS
CRL.MC NO. 2308 OF 2020
6
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2308/2020
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE I THE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.202/2020 OF THE MOOVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM RURAL DISTRICT. ANNEXURE I(A) THE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT LEADING TO THE REGISTRATION OF ANNEXURE -I-FIR. ANNEXURE II THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 10/3/2020 EXECUTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE NOTARY PUBLIC.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC given that the FIR does not allege a false promise of marriage made in bad faith and the parties have settled the dispute.
How to determine if ingredients of rape under Section 376 IPC are attracted when the alleged false promise was negated by the complainant's affidavit stating her mother opposed the marriage.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
nullReferred
nullReferred
3 provisions across 3 enactments
JOHNSON
STATE OF KERALA
THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MOOVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION
THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
