The main legal point established in the judgment is the vital distinction between consensual sexual relationship and forcible sexual intercourse as per Section 376 of the IPC, emphasizing the need for voluntary and conscious consent, the impact of breach of promise to marry on consent, and the importance of explaining substantial delay in lodging the FIR.

ORDER :

1. The above Criminal Miscellaneous Case was filed with the following prayer:

“......to quash Annexure B Final Report in Crime No. 658/2019 of Chengannur Police Station and all further proceedings in C.P. No. 1/2020 pending on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrates Court-I, Chengannur.”

2. Heard Sri. Nikhil Sankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/sole accused, Sri. B. Jayasurya, learned counsel appearing for R1, State of Kerala and Sri. S. Mohammed Al Rafi, learned counsel appearing for the contesting 2nd respondent (lady de facto complainant).

3. The petitioner herein initially was arrayed as the sole accused in Crime No. 90 of 2019 Varatharappilly Police Station, Thrissur district for offences punishable under Section 376 of IPC on the basis of First Information Statement furnished by the 2nd respondent (lady de facto complainant) on 07.03.2019 at 12.00 noon in respect of the alleged incident happened on 27.01.2019 at about 5.20 p.m. Later the crime was transferred to the Chengannur Police Station as the incident said to be happened within the limits of the said Police and accordingly, the crime re-registered in terms of Annexure A as FIR in Crime No. 658 of 2019 of Chengannur Police Station for the said offence as per Section 376 of the IPC. The Police after investigation has filed the impugned Annexure B final report/Charge sheet in the instant case which is now pending in committal proceedings, as C.P. No. 1 of 2020 on the file Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Chengannur. This Court has now apprised that committal proceedings has not been completed in the said C.P. No. 1 of 2020.

4. The petitioner seeks quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings on the ground that if the alleged incidents which are said to have taken place as per the impugned criminal proceedings are assumed to be true, still the same could have been happened only on the basis of consensual sexual relationship between the parties and that no case of forcible sexual intercourse so as to make out the offence of Section 376 of the IPC is brought out in the instant case. The petitioner would also have an alternative case that now the 2nd respondent has filed a notarized affidavit dated 06.07.2020 (produced as Annexure F along with Crl. M.A. No. 3 of 2020 in the above criminal M.C.) stating that the above said impugned criminal proceedings has arisen on account of the allegations made by her earlier on account of the misunderstanding between the parties and that she has no further grievances against the petitioner and that she has no objections in this Court quashing the impugned criminal proceedings. In that regard, the petitioner would also invite this Court's attention to Annexure R2A letter dated 15.07.2019 said to have been submitted by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent investigating officer that she does not wish to continue the impugned prosecution measures in the instant case, etc.

5. It is by now well settled that it may not be right and proper for this Court to consider quashment of serious and grave offence of rape as per Section 376 of the IPC, solely on the ground of settlement between the parties [See Shimbhu vs. State of Haryana, (2014) 13 SCC 318, Parbatbhai Aahir vs. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, Anita Maria Dias vs. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 3 SCC 290, Sebastian @ Solly vs. State of Kerala, 2015 (1) KLJ 384, etc]. However, the main ground urged by the petitioner is that, even going by the admitted prosecution materials, more particularly, Annexure A First Information Statement given by none other than 2nd respondent (lady de facto complainant), it can be seen that the alleged incidents therein, if assumed to be true, would have happened only on the basis of consent of the parties and therefore, it does not constitute the vital ingredient of offence of rape as per Sec.376 of the IPC.

6. Before dealing with the facts of this case, it will be pertinent to refer to the legal principles laid down by