Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 32569
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
M.R.ANITHA, J
SANDEEP – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC/1375/2021
M.G.SREEJITH, MERSEENA VINCENT
Subsequent marriage after consent in relationships can negate charges of rape, emphasizing the importance of consent and marital status in such cases.
Headnote:
Criminal - Quashing Proceedings - IPC Sections 363, 366, 376, 120, POCSO Act Sections 3, 4 - The court quashed the proceedings against petitioners based on marriage post-consent between alleged victim and accused, relying on previous judgments interpreting consent in similar situations.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash proceedings arising from accusations of kidnapping and rape against the 1st petitioner, claiming that he married the alleged victim after she reached adulthood, supported by documentation of their marriage and joint life.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the victim had consented to the relationship and subsequent marriage, which negated the criminal charges under IPC and POCSO, determining that continuing the case would obstruct their marital life.
Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioners could be quashed given the subsequent marriage of the accused to the victim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that where a victim consents to sexual relations with an assurance of marriage, and the marriage occurs shortly after, it does not constitute rape, and prosecution would be an abuse of process.
Final Decision: Crl.M.C. allowed; all further proceedings against the petitioners are quashed.
ORDER
Dated this the 17th day of November, 2021 This Crl.M.C. has been filed seeking to quash all further proceedings against the petitioners in S.C. No.864/2019 on the files of Fast Track Special Court, Haripad, which arise out of Crime No.1042/2017 of Kanakakkunnu Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363 , 366, 120, 376 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act , 2012.
2. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 5 in S.C. No.864/2017.
It is alleged that, 1st petitioner kidnapped the 3rd respondent/defacto complainant when she was a minor, from the custody of guardian and he committed rape and thereby committed the offences under Sections 363 , 366, 120, 376 and Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act , 2012.
3. Petitioners 2 to 5 are the friends of the 1st petitioner. It is alleged that they facilitated for doing the act by the 1st accused. The mother of the 3rd respondent died before ten years and her father married another lady and shifted to Kottayam and 3rd respondent is also shifted to Kottayam. Due to some difference in opinions with the father, she went to grand mother's house. While, so she fall in love with 1st petitioner and later with the consent of his parents decided to marry him after attaining majority.
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the
1st petitioner married the defacto complainant on 11.1.2020 on attaining majority and presently they are living together as husband and wife.
5. Adv.Merseena Vincent, appeared on behalf of the defacto complainant and reports about the settlement and the marriage between the 1st petitioner and the defacto complainant.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor produced the copy of the report of Inspector of Police, Kanakakkunnu, along with the copy of the statement of the defacto complainant.
7. Annexure-A1 is copy of the final report. Annexure-A2 is the copy of the marriage certificate of the petitioner with the defacto complainant. Annexure-A3 is the affidavit duly sworn in by the defacto complainant/3rd respondent.
8. It has come out from the documents produced from the side of the petitioner as well as the report of the SHO and the signed statement of the victim girl that the 1st petitioner married the victim girl after she attained majority. Presently they are living together happily.
9. In Denu P.Thampi v. Ms.X and Another (2019(2)
KLT 996 : 2019(3) KHC 199 ) this Court in an identical situation held that when the victim gave consent for sexual intercourse on the promise made by the accused that he would marry her and when that promise was not fraudulent and the accused married the victim within a short period after the alleged incident, it cannot be said that accused committed rape upon her. It is also held that in such cases, prosecution of accused for committing an offence of rape would be an abuse of process of court and in such cases court would be justified in quashing the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973. In this case also, the defacto complainant filed complaint alleging that accused committed rape promising to marry her.
10. Since, the 1st petitioner married the victim the 3rd respondent, now they are living together happily. So, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner would definitely affect their peaceful marital life. The 3rd respondent has no objection in quashing the proceedings against the petitioners. Hence ends of justice demands quashment of the proceedings against the petitioners.
In the result, Crl.M.C. allowed and all further proceedings against the petitioners in S.C. No.864/2019 on the files of Fast Track Special Court, Haripad, arise out of Crime No.1042/2017 of Kanakakkunnu Police Station, is here by quashed.
In the result, Crl.M.C. allowed accordingly.
Sd/-
M.R.ANITHA JUDGE
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1375/2021 PETITIONER ANNEXURE ANNEXURE
