The High Court of Kerala has quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused of rape and matrimonial offences, ruling that a sexual relationship spanning over eight years, which commenced while the victim’s husband was still alive, cannot be classified as rape based on a subsequent allegation of a false promise of marriage.
Justice G. Girish allowed the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), observing that the long cohabitation between the parties indicated a relationship in the nature of consensual sex, not one based on a misconception of fact.
Case Summary
The High Court was considering a petition to quash proceedings pending before the Additional Sessions Court-IX, Thiruvananthapuram. The Court held that a relationship started when the victim was already married cannot be said to be based on a promise of marriage, and long cohabitation even after the husband’s death reinforces the consensual nature of the relationship. Consequently, the proceedings under Sections 493, 496, and 376 of the IPC were quashed.
Background of the Case
The petitioner was facing trial in S.C. No. 802/2019 arising out of Crime No. 3053/2017 of Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The allegations involved offences punishable under Section 493 (Cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage), Section 496 (Marriage ceremony fraudulently gone through without lawful marriage), and Section 376 (Rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The prosecution’s case was that the petitioner befriended the de facto complainant, a widow with two children, in 2009. It was alleged that the petitioner indulged in a sexual relationship with her after making her believe he would marry her. Notably, at the time the relationship commenced in 2009, the complainant’s husband was alive; he passed away subsequently on October 22, 2013.
The prosecution further alleged that after the husband’s death, the petitioner continued to reside with the complainant and her children. When she insisted on a formal marriage, the petitioner allegedly tied a knot in her gold chain in front of a candle and lamp, inducing her to believe they were married. The relationship reportedly continued until 2017. The complainant later discovered that the petitioner had married another woman residing at Aryanad. When questioned, the petitioner allegedly stated that he considered the complainant alone as his wife but later severed the relationship.
Arguments of the Parties
The Petitioner: The counsel for the petitioner contended that none of the offences alleged were legally sustainable. It was argued that the relationship between the petitioner and the de facto complainant was purely consensual and did not constitute the offence of rape. The petitioner also denied the accusation that he had offered to marry the de facto complainant.
The Respondents: The Station House Officer and the de facto complainant (represented by counsel) opposed the petition. The prosecution relied on the statement of the victim regarding the promise of marriage and the alleged fraudulent marriage ceremony.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
1. regarding Offences under Sections 493 and 496 IPC: The Court first addressed the maintainability of the prosecution for offences under Sections 493 and 496 IPC included in the final report. Justice G. Girish observed that under Section 198 Cr.P.C., a court is proscribed from taking cognizance of these offences except upon a complaint made by a person aggrieved by the offence.
The Court held:
“Therefore, the petitioner cannot be compelled to face trial for the offences under Sections 493 and 496 I.P.C in a final report filed by the police under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.”
2. Regarding Offence under Section 376 IPC (Rape): The Court minutely examined whether the sexual relationship could be termed ‘rape’ due to a lack of valid consent or consent obtained under a ‘misconception of fact’.
The Court noted a critical factual timeline: the relationship began in 2009, approximately four years before the death of the complainant’s husband. The Court observed:
“It is not possible to accept the contention of the de facto complainant that she had extended consent for sexual relationship with the petitioner at a time when her husband was alive, believing the offer made by the petitioner to marry her.”
The Court further noted that the subsequent conduct of the de facto complainant—maintaining the relationship for about four years after her husband’s death—demonstrated that the relationship was consensual. Regarding the allegation that the petitioner married another woman, the Court remarked that the complainant continued the relationship even after knowing of this marriage, which rendered the allegation of rape unsustainable.
3. Legal Precedents on Consent and False Promise: The High Court referred to several key Supreme Court judgments to substantiate its reasoning:
- Uday v. State of Karnataka [(2003) 4 SCC 46]: The Court cited the principle that consent given by a prosecutrix who is deeply in love, on a promise of marriage, cannot be said to be given under a misconception of fact. A false promise is not a fact within the meaning of the Code.
- Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana [(2013) 7 SCC 675]: The Court emphasized the distinction between a mere breach of promise and not fulfilling a false promise. An accused can be convicted only if the intention was mala fide from the very beginning.
- Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2023) 15 SCC 385]: The Court relied on this recent verdict involving a married woman with children, where the Apex Court held that such a victim is mature enough to understand the consequences of the act she is consenting to, and a long-standing relationship cannot be termed rape based on a false promise.
Applying these principles to the present case, Justice Girish observed:
“The long cohabitation of the accused and victim over a period of more than eight years itself show that their relationship partook the character of consensual sex, and that the accused and victim had been behaving with each other like husband and wife.”
The Court further stated:
“The fact that the accused went in search of greener pasture for giving vent to his promiscuous sexual urge, and started a new relationship in the nature of marriage with another lady, by itself will not bring his prior relationship with the victim with in the meaning of rape.”
Decision
The High Court concluded that the final report and accompanying records failed to satisfy the essential requirements for prosecution under the alleged sections.
Held:
“The proceedings against the petitioner in S.C No.802/2019 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-IX, Thiruvananthapuram, which arose out of Crime No.3053/2017 of Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, are hereby quashed.”
Case Details
- Case Title: Pradeep v. The Station House Officer & Anr.
- Case Number: Crl.M.C. No. 5348 of 2019
- Court: High Court of Kerala
- Coram: Justice G. Girish
