Dismissed

Bichu K Dileep v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Jun 2024Crl.MC/724/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A high court judge rejected a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of an FIR under Section 482 CrPC. The case involved allegations of rape under Section 376(2)(n) IPC. The court held that consent arising from a promise of marriage is a matter for trial and thus the petition was dismissed, directing the accused to face trial.

What did the court decide?

The petition for quashment is dismissed. The accused is directed to appear before the trial court and face trial. The interim stay is vacated.

Bichu K Dileep Vs the State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 724 OF 2021

¶4

CRIME NO.133/2020 OF Ernakulam Central Police Station,

¶5

Ernakulam

¶6

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶7

BICHU K DILEEP
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O. DILEEP, BICHU NIVAS,
CHARAMANGALAM, MUHAMMA P. O.,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688 252.
BY ADVS.
A.C.DEVY
SRI.A.M.ABDULLA
SRI.K.R.RAMISH

¶8

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶9

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶10

2XXXX

¶11

BY ADVS.
JIJI S
M.M.BABY(K/000493/1995)
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI M P PRASANTH

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

¶13

29.05.2024, THE COURT ON 03.06.2024 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Crl.M.C.No.724/2021 2

¶15

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

¶16

================================

¶17

Crl.M.C No.724 of 2021

¶18

================================

¶19

Dated this the 3 rd day of June, 2024

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under

¶22

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C’ for short)

¶23

by the accused in Crime No.133 of 2020 of Central Police Station, Ernakulam, with the following prayers:

¶24

“i) Quash FIR and Charge Sheet No.133/2020 of Central

¶25

Police Station and its further proceedings consequent to the same by invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶26

ii ) Grant such other relief as deemed fit to this Hon’ble

¶27

Court.”

¶28

2 . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶29

learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the entire case records

¶30

Crl.M.C.No.724/2021 3

¶31

in this matter.

¶32

3 . The prosecution allegation in concise form is that the accused herein, who made acquaintance with the defacto complainant, made a close relationship with the defacto complainant and offered to marry her. Thereafter on the promise of marriage, the accused brought the defacto complainant to Mars Hotel, near Padma Theatre and subjected her to sexual intercourse. Thereafter, they continued relationship for a while and later the accused retracted from the marriage and avoided the defacto complainant. This the context in which prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC’ for short).

¶33

4 . The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there are no materials in this case to hold that the accused committed rape on the defacto complainant and even as per the prosecution records sexual intercourse is the outcome of consent.

¶34

Crl.M.C.No.724/2021 4

¶35

However, he submitted that the defacto complainant and the accused are unmarried persons while maintaining the relationship.

¶36

5 . The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the

¶37

sexual intercourse is the outcome of promise given by the accused to the defacto complainant and in such a case the element of consent, on the promise of marriage would not absolve the accused from penal consequences. He also submitted that whether the sexual act is the outcome of consent with or without promise of marriage is matter of evidence and, therefore, the case could not be quashed since the same shall go for trial.

¶38

6 . I have perused the entire records to see the merits of the contentions argued in rivalry. It is crystal clear that the defacto complainant and the accused became friends and they maintained a relationship of love and the accused made offer to marry her. Further there was decision to solemnise the marriage. The sexual intercourse, as alleged in the F.I statement, is the outcome of such

¶39

Crl.M.C.No.724/2021 5

¶40

promise, as could be gathered, prima facie . In such a case, as rightly argued by the learned Public Prosecutor, whether the element of consent would save the accused, is a matter to be decided on trial and therefore, the quashment of final report without allowing the prosecution to let in evidence could not be considered.

¶41

7 . Therefore, the prayer for quashment cannot be allowed as there are materials in evidence to go for trial.

¶42

In the result, the petition is dismissed. The accused is directed to appear before the trial court and face trial.

¶43

The interim stay stands vacated.

¶44

Registry shall forward a copy of this order to the jurisdictional court for information and further action.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

(A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE)

¶47

rtr/

¶48

Crl.M.C.No.724/2021 6

¶49

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 724/2021

¶50

PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES

¶51

ANNEXURE ATRUE FREE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.133/2020 REGISTERED BY THE CENTRAL
POLICESTATION,ERNAKULAMDATED
12.02.2020 IN A SEALED COVER.
ANNEXURE BTRUE FREE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN
CRIME NO.133/2020 REGISTERED BY THE
CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DATED
12.02.2020 IN A SEALED COVER.

Bichu K Dileep v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bichu K Dileep v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anitha, Vs State of Kerala

Xxxx Vs Xxxx

Shijad.T. J Vs State of Kerala

1. Arun Narayanan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Pocker Vs the Station House Officer

Ajith Prasad E. Vs Suharabi