Accused sought quashing of an FIR and final report alleging rape on a false promise of marriage, claiming consensual relationship. The Court held consent on a promise of marriage raises prima facie offence under Section 376 IPC, whether the relationship was consensual is a matter of evidence, and quashing was refused.
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 A. BADHARUDEEN
MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2024 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 2013 OF 2022
CRIME NO.537/2017 OF ANTHIKAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
RIYAS,
AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL AZEEZ, KARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KAIPAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KAIPAMANGALAM POST, KODUNGALLOOR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680681.
BY ADVS.M.G.JEEVAN
SANIYA JOSE MAMPILLY
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031.
*** ADDL.R2 XXXXX**
*** ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 22.07.2024 IN CRL.M.A.NO.2/2022**
R1 SRI.M.P.PRASANTH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C. No.2013 of 2022
-:2:-
ORDER
Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2024
This Crl.M.C. has been filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner, who is the sole accused in Crime No.537/2017 of Anthikad Police Station, Thrissur. He seeks quashment of Annexure A1 FIR and Annexure A2 Final Report in the above said Crime.
and met the defacto complainant at her residence. On
Crl.M.C. No.2013 of 2022
-:3:-
14.03.2016 also, the accused reached the residence of the
defacto complainant and offered to marry her. Thus on the promise of marriage, she was subjected her to sexual intercourse. Another day in March, 2016 also, he repeated the same and he recorded the above overt acts on his mobile phone. Later, it was revealed that the marriage of the accused was fixed and accordingly, she inflicted cut injury on her left hand because of the tension caused by knowing about the marriage fixation of the defacto complainant. Later, the defacto complainant contacted the mother of the accused on 24.03.2017, for which, the accused scolded her, and she again inflicted cut injury on her hand. This is the substratum where from this crime was registered.
are the inference to be drawn from the entire prosecution case
Crl.M.C. No.2013 of 2022
-:4:-
and therefore, quashment of the proceedings is essential. Holding so, no offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short hereinafter) is made out.
Crl.M.C. No.2013 of 2022
-:5:-
like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed
by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. In a case of rape or attempt of rape, the conception of compromise under no circumstances can really be thought of. These are crimes against the body of a woman which is her own temple. These are offences which suffocate the breath of life and sully the reputation. And reputation, needless to emphasise, is the richest jewel one can conceive of in life. No one would allow it to be extinguished. When a human frame is defiled, the "purest treasure", is lost. Dignity of a woman is a part of her non-perishable and immortal self and no one should ever think of painting it in clay. There cannot be a compromise or settlement as it would be against her honour which matters the most. It is sacrosanct. Sometimes solace is given that the perpetrator of the crime has acceded to enter
Crl.M.C. No.2013 of 2022
-:6:-
into wedlock with her which is nothing but putting pressure in an adroit manner; and that the Courts are to remain absolutely away from this subterfuge to adopt a soft approach to the case, for any kind of liberal approach has to be put in the compartment of spectacular error. Or to put it differently, it would be in the realm of a sanctuary of error. Such an attitude reflects lack of sensibility towards the dignity, the elan vital, of a woman. Any kind of liberal approach or thought of mediation in this regard is thoroughly and completely sans legal permissibility. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in
Crl.M.C. No.2013 of 2022
-:7:-
punishing persons for serious offences. In other words, grave or serious offences or offences which involve moral turpitude or have a harmful effect on the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public policy, cannot be construed betwixt two individuals or groups only, for such offences have the potential to impact the society at large. Effacing abominable offences through quashing process would not only send a wrong signal to the community, but may also accord an undue benefit to unscrupulous habitual or professional offenders, who can secure a “settlement” through duress, threats, social boycotts, bribes or other dubious means. It is well said that “let no guilty man escape, if it can be avoided.”
non-compoundable offence and can quash the proceedings on
Crl.M.C. No.2013 of 2022
-:8:-
the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties even in the cases of non-compoundable offences but while exercising its jurisdiction this Court must consider the fact that whether the proceeding relates to any serious and heinous offences and whether the crime in question has impact over the society. In cases of serious nature which affects the society at large this Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings on the basis of compromise executed between the parties. (See decisions in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another reported in [(2012) 10 SCC 303], Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another reported in [(2014) 9 SCC 466], Shimbhu v. State of Haryana reported in [AIR 2014 Supreme Court 739] (three Bench) , State of Madhya Pradesh v. Madanlal reported in [AIR 2015 Supreme Court 3003] (two Bench), Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others v. State of
Crl.M.C. No.2013 of 2022
-:9:-
Gujarat and Another reported in [(2017) 9 SCC 641], State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan & Ors . reported in [(2019) 5 SCC 688], Arun Singh and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh Through its Secretary and Another reported in [(2020) (3) SCC 736], Ram Gopal & Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in [(2021 0 Supreme (SC) 529)], Daxaben v. The State of Gujarat & others reported in [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 642], P.Dharmraj v. Shanmugam and others decided on 8th September 2022 in Crl.Appeal Nos.1515-1516 of 2022).
Crl.M.C. No.2013 of 2022
-:10:-
complainant also was subjected to sexual intercourse on the promise of marriage. The defacto complainant's attempt to solemise the marriage went in vain and she caused injuries on her hand two times when she got dejected, on knowing the marriage fixation of the accused. In such a case, prima facie, consent is on the promise of marriage. Therefore, the prosecution shall be permitted to adduce evidence. Therefore, quashment cannot be considered.
Registry shall forward a copy of this order to the trial court for information and compliance.
Sd/- A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE
bpr
Crl.M.C. No.2013 of 2022
-:11:-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2013/2022
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.537/2017 DATED 31.05.2017 OF ANTHIKAD POLICE STATION. Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.537/2017 OF ANTHIKAD POLICE STATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT NO.II, THRISSUR. Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 09.01.2019 IN B.A.NO.8688/2018 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings for rape based on sexual intercourse on a promise of marriage can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC on the plea that the relationship was consensual.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and AnotherRelied on¶7
(2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and AnotherRelied on¶7
(2014) 9 SCC 466 · Who else cites this
Shimbhu v. State of HaryanaRelied on¶7
AIR 2014 Supreme Court 739 · Who else cites this
State of Madhya Pradesh v. MadanlalRelied on¶7
AIR 2015 Supreme Court 3003 · Who else cites this
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan & Ors.Relied on¶7
(2019) 5 SCC 688 · Who else cites this
Arun Singh and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh Through its Secretary and AnotherRelied on¶7
(2020) (3) SCC 736 · Who else cites this
Ram Gopal & Another v. State of Madhya PradeshRelied on¶7
(2021 0 Supreme (SC) 529)
Daxaben v. The State of Gujarat & othersRelied on¶7
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 642
P.Dharmraj v. Shanmugam and othersRelied on¶7
Crl.Appeal Nos.1515-1516 of 2022
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Riyas
State of Kerala
A. Badharudeen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
