Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.JAYACHANDRAN, J
Manu.c.manikantan S/o.c.p. Manikantan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
ORDER :
(C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.)
The petitioners herein are accused nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.867/2023 of Kannapuram Police Station, Kannur. The offences alleged are under Section 376, 376(2)(l), 376(2) (n), 417 and 420, read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. The petitioners seek quashment of the crime and all further proceedings therein, including the Final Report, on the premise that the matter has been settled by and between the petitioners and the defacto complainant/3rd respondent. It is also the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations in the Final Report, taken on its face value, will not constitute the offences alleged.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners; learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/defacto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was an intimate love affair between the 1st petitioner and the 3rd respondent for a period of more than two years and that their marriage was about tobe solemnized, at which point of time, there arose a difference of opinion between the families. The physical relationship between the 1st petitioner and the 3rd respondent was n
Consent in sexual offences cannot be deemed vitiated unless the promise to marry was false at inception and intended to deceive, which was not established in this case.
A breach of promise to marry does not constitute a false promise under Section 376 IPC unless it is shown that the promise was made without intention to uphold it.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of consent under Section 375 IPC and the distinction between a false promise of marriage and breach of promise, emphasizing t....
Consensual relationships cannot be classified as rape simply due to a breach of promise to marry; criminal liability requires clear evidence of bad faith or deceit by the accused.
A consensual relationship, even under promise of marriage, may not constitute rape if consent is given freely without coercion.
A breach of promise to marry does not constitute rape unless it can be proven that the promise was made with intent to deceive from the outset.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
