The Kerala High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused of having physical relations with a woman on the pretext of marriage, ruling that a subsequent failure to wed cannot retrospectively convert consensual sexual intercourse into a criminal offence.
In an order issued on September 7, Justice Jobin Sebastian held that invoking criminal liability on the grounds of vitiated consent requires foundational evidence establishing that the promise was false from its very inception. The bench stated that there must also be proof showing a direct link between that promise and the woman’s decision to enter into the physical relationship, concluding that proceeding with the prosecution would serve no meaningful purpose.
Prior Marriage Precludes Claim of Deceit
The decision came on a plea moved by the accused seeking the dismissal of a First Information Report (FIR). The prosecution had contended that the man engaged in sexual relations after promising to marry the complainant, leading the couple to formalise an engagement and live together as husband and wife. The woman further claimed that upon discovering she was two months pregnant, the accused directed her to terminate the pregnancy and cheated her.
In response, the petitioner argued that the complaint described a consensual adult relationship rather than offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), highlighting that the complainant was already married to someone else when their relationship commenced.
While the woman’s counsel acknowledged that she was married at the time the relationship began but later secured a divorce, the court observed that her first marriage remained legally intact when the sexual encounters started. Under those circumstances, the bench determined that the complainant’s claim of consenting solely on the basis of an assurance of marriage could not be accepted.
Subsequent Conduct and Cheating Allegations
Justice Sebastian also pointed out that the physical relationship was not a single incident, noting that the pair engaged in repeated intercourse across multiple locations. The bench clarified that while the woman subsequently dissolved her marriage and became engaged to the accused, those subsequent developments could not retrospectively prove that her initial consent was obtained through deceit.
Addressing the allegation that the accused told the complainant to abort the pregnancy, the court held that such a demand does not inherently satisfy the statutory components of criminal cheating. The bench stressed that simply inserting the term “cheated” into a First Information Statement cannot establish an offence unless substantiated by specific factual allegations that satisfy the law, thereby ordering the FIR and all connected proceedings quashed.
