Breakup After Consensual Relationship Not Rape; Criminal Proceedings When Relationship Turns Sour A Growing Tendency: Kerala High Court - 2025-08-27

Relationship Turning Sour Can't Convert Consensual Sex to Rape: Kerala HC Grants Pre-Arrest Bail to Musician

Kochi: The Kerala High Court, while granting anticipatory bail to musician Hiran Das Murali, observed that the criminalization of consensual relationships after a breakup is a growing and concerning trend. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas emphasized that a failed promise of marriage does not automatically convert a consensual physical relationship into the offence of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The court noted that labelling physical intimacy as rape after a relationship ends is "illogical and harsh," and cautioned against the misuse of criminal proceedings which can destroy an individual's future.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, musician Hiran Das Murali, sought pre-arrest bail after an FIR was registered against him under Sections 376 (rape) and 376(2)(n) (repeated rape on the same woman) of the IPC. The complaint was filed by a doctor who alleged that Murali had engaged in sexual intercourse with her on multiple occasions between August 2021 and March 2023 under the false promise of marriage. The complaint was filed in July 2025, over a year after their last encounter and after their relationship ended.

Arguments from Both Sides

• Petitioner's Counsel, Sri. S. Rajeev, argued that the relationship was entirely consensual and romantic. He contended that the relationship did not culminate in marriage due to incompatibility, and the belated complaint was an afterthought following their breakup.

• Complainant's Counsel, Smt. Bimala Baby, countered that her client's consent was fraudulently obtained through a false promise of marriage. She highlighted that the petitioner allegedly had a history of similar behaviour with other women and that the victim was undergoing psychiatric treatment for the trauma she endured.

• The Learned Public Prosecutor, Smt. Sreeja V., described the allegations as serious and argued for the necessity of custodial interrogation, pointing to another criminal case recently registered against the petitioner for different offences.

Court's Legal Analysis: False Promise vs. Breach of Promise

Justice Thomas's judgment centered on the critical legal distinction between a "false promise to marry" and a "breach of promise to marry." The court observed that for a promise to be considered "false" and thus invalidate consent, the prosecution must establish that the accused had no intention of marrying the victim from the very beginning.

The court cited several Supreme Court precedents, including Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra , to reinforce this principle:

"To establish a false promise, the maker of the promise should have had no intention of upholding his word at the time of giving it. The 'consent' of a woman under Section 375 is vitiated on the ground of a 'misconception of fact' where such misconception was the basis for her choosing to engage in the said act."

The judgment also referred to the Supreme Court's observation in Bishwajyothi Chatterjee vs. State of West Bengal , noting a "growing tendency of resorting to initiation of criminal proceedings when relationships turn sour."

Pivotal Observations from the Judgment

Reviewing the complainant's statement, the court found the circumstances to be prima facie suggestive of a consensual relationship. The court highlighted key details from the victim's own account:

"It is baffling and difficult to comprehend, at this juncture at least, how, if the petitioner had raped her on the first day, she would still have allowed him to remain in her apartment for the following three days or even on later and regularly engage in a physical relationship with him. The above circumstances are prima facie, suggestive of a consensual relationship."

The court further remarked on the misuse of the legal system in such cases:

"If the break up of a relationship between consenting couples lead to criminal proceedings and consequential arrest, it will have the tendency to destroy the future of an individual."

Final Decision and Conditions

Concluding that custodial interrogation was not required, the court allowed the bail application. It held that the circumstances indicated a consensual relationship between two adults that subsequently ended.

Hiran Das Murali was granted pre-arrest bail on the condition that he cooperates with the investigation, executes a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties, does not contact the victim, and does not leave the country without court permission.