Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 18754
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
G. GIRISH, J
.......... .......... .......... – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 2931/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT. SRUTHI RAJIT
For the Respondents: SRI. V.V. JOY
Marrying the complainant negates allegations of false promise related to sexual intercourse under IPC Sections 376 and 366.
Headnote:The case revolves around the petitioner accused of committing offences under Sections 376 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The complainant stated that the petitioner had married her, declaring that prior accusations arose from misunderstanding. The court finds the allegations unsubstantiated due to evidence of marriage, ultimately quashing the proceedings. The proceedings against the petitioner are quashed, aligning with the statements provided by the complainant.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations stem from misunderstanding post-marriage. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented by all parties reveal context. (Para 4) |
| 3. affidavit confirms resolution of the issue. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court finds no merit in allegations as marriage was established. (Para 7 , 8) |
ORDER
The petitioner is the accused in S.C.No.1637/2024 on the files of the Fast Track Special Court, Chavakkad. The offences alleged against him are under Sections 376 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner indulged in sexual relationship with the defacto complainant on 06.01.2024, in a lodge room by giving false promise of marriage.
3. In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that the offences alleged against him are not attracted, since he had already married the defacto complainant, and that they are leading a peacefull family life.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
5. The de facto complainant has filed an afÏdavit before this Court stating that the petitioner has married her and that she is now living along with him as his wife. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant submitted that the defacto complainant happened to lodge the complaint against the petitioner due to a misunderstanding, and that at present she has no subsisting grievances aginst him, since the petitioner has honoured his assurance to marry the defacto complainant.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor, upon instructions, submitted that the de facto complainant had given statement to the Investigating OfÏcer also upon the same terms, as that of the afÏdavit filed by her before this Court.
7. The petitioner has produced the copies of relevant records from the Jamaath concerned, and also certain photographs showing his marriage with the defacto complainant.
8. It is apparent from the above facts and circumstances of the case, that the allegation against the petitioner that he resorted to sexual intercourse with the defacto complainant under the false promise of marriage, is not correct, since he had fulfilled his promise by marrying the defacto complainant. Thus, it is apparent that the offence alleged against the petitioner, is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore, the prayer in this petition to quash the proceedings against him, is justifiable.
