IMPORTANT POINT
In cases of alleged rape, a consensual relationship and significant delay in filing an FIR can undermine the prosecution's case, leading to quashment of proceedings.

ORDER :

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , to quash all further proceedings in S.C. No.921/2019 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Ottappalam, arose out of Crime No.69 of 2019 of Koppam Police Station, Palakkad. The petitioner herein is the accused in the above case.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Also heard the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant/2 ^nd respondent. Perused the records and relevant materials available.

3. In a nutshell, the prosecution allegation is that, the petitioner herein, who made acquaintance with the defacto complainant, with promise of marriage, subjected the defacto complainant to rape in between the period from 30.05.2014 to 20.04.2019, on the promise of marriage. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC .

4. While seeking quashment of the proceedings, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and the allegations are false. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even though the occurrence alleged in the FIR is during the period from 30.05.2014 to 20.04.2019, the FIR was lodged at a belated stage on 20.04.2019, though admittedly no relationship or contact between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. Even though in the year 2016, Annexure.VIII complaint has been lodged by the defacto complainant raising somewhat similar allegations against the petitioner, the same are not fully in conformity with the allegations raised in the present case. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that, as per the additional statement given by the defacto complainant, it has been stated that there was no contact between the petitioner and the defacto complainant for a period of three years. Thus, the allegation as to commission of offence under Section 376 of IPC by the petitioner on 30.05.2014, now alleged as per the Final Report is false. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in this matter, consensual relationship is the inference to be drawn from the materials available and sexual overt acts at the instance of the petitioner, in a consensual relationship would not attract offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC .

5. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant would submit that, the defacto complainant filed an afÏdavit supporting quashment of the proceedings, since she had no grievance at present.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed quashment and submitted that, going by the FIS, the allegations are made out, prima facie. It is discernible from the prosecution materials that, when the petitioner retracted from the marriage, the defacto complainant lodged complaint before the Women Protection OfÏcer, Women Cell, Palakkad and thereafter when the petitioner again assured marriage with the defacto complainant, the same was not proceeded. But the petitioner deviated from the promise again. Therefore, the defacto complainant lodged FIR suggesting the ingredients to attract the offence punishable under Sections 376 of IPC . In such a case, quashment of the proceedings could not be considered, without permitting the prosecution to adduce evidence.

7. In the instant case, FIR was registered based on the FIS given by the victim on 20.04.2019 alleging that the petitioner, who made acquaintance with the defacto complainant on the promise of marriage, subjected her to rape in between the period from 30.05.2014 to 20.04.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner retracted from the marriage.

8. In the Final Report, the allegation is that, the petitioner, who made acquaintance with the defacto complainant during the year 2011, promised to marry her.