SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
Sreekanth Sasidharan – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Lal K. Joseph, Sri. A.A. Ziyad Rahman, Advocate Sri. Suresh Sukumar, Advocate Sri. V.S. Shiraz Bava, Advocate and Sri. P. Vijaya Bhanu, (Sr.) Advocate
For the Respondents:Smt. T.V. Neema, Sr. Government Pleader, Sri. S. Sreekumar (Sr.) Advocate, Smt. M.B. Shyni and Sri. Deepak Raj, Advocates

Judgement Key Points

The allegations indicate that both the petitioner and the de facto complainant, being adults, voluntarily engaged in a relationship and maintained it over a significant period. There is no evidence of force, coercion, or undue influence at the outset. Criminal proceedings should not be initiated solely because a relationship fails or does not result in a marriage. When the relationship is consensual and both parties are adults, such matters do not amount to an offence under criminal law, as the law recognizes the autonomy of adults to enter into consensual relationships.


ORDER

This Crl.M.C has been filed to quash Annexure A1 FIR in Crime No.401/2019 of Peramangalam Police Station u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

2. The petitioner is the accused. The 4th respondent is the victim/defacto complainant. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 376 of IPC.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that during the period between 2010 to 31st March 2019, the petitioner, by giving a false promise of marriage to the 4th respondent, had sexual intercourse with her in several places in India and abroad and thereby committed the offence of rape. It is further alleged that during the period of their good relationship, the petitioner dishonestly induced the 4th respondent to deliver an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- and five sovereigns of gold and committed the offence of cheating and criminal breach by not returning the money and gold.

4. I have heard Sri.Lal K.Joseph, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.S.Sreekumar, the learned Senior Counsel for the 4th respondent and Smt.T.V.Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Lal K. Joseph submitted t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top