Consent for sexual relations is valid despite promises of marriage if the complainant was aware of the accused's marital status.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH TH WEDNESDAY, THE 30 DAY OF JULY 2025 / 8TH SRAVANA, 1947 CRL.MC NO.1432 OF 2022 CRIME NO.69/2022 OF PERINGOME POLICE STATION, KANNUR PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED:

RAJEESH AGED 32 YEARS S/O RAJEEVAN,MAVILA PUTHIYA VEED, ALAKKAD,KANKOL, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670571 BY ADVS SRI.S.S.ARAVIND SRI.M.V. AMARESAN RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

2 XXX XXX BY ADVS.

SRI.R.ANIL SRI.THOMAS SABU VADAKEKUT SHRI.MAHESH BHANU S.

SHRI.RESSIL LONAN SRI.JAISON JOSEPH SRI.P.S.BASTIN SMT PUSHPALATHA M.K., SR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 30.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.69/2022 of Peringome Police Station, Kannur. The Crime has been registered against him in respect of the offences under Sections 376 (2)(n) and 420 IPC , based on the First Information Statement given by the de facto complainant/2nd respondent on 28.01.2022.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he indulged in sexual relationship with the de facto complainant from the month of October 2021 to 31.12.2021 by giving false promise of marriage to the de facto complainant. It is also alleged that the petitioner had, by threat and coercion, obtained an amount of Rs.5 lakhs and 5 sovereigns of gold from the de facto complainant and refused to give back the same. Thus, the petitioner is alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences.

3. In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that none of the offences as alleged against him would be attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is further stated that the petitioner is totally innocent, and that he has been falsely implicated in this case.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

5. It is writ large from the averments in the First Information Statement given by the de facto complainant that during the period when the de facto complainant had indulged in sexual relationship with the petitioner, she was fully aware of the fact that the petitioner was a married man having a child. Though there is a vague and superficial allegation that the sexual intercourse between the petitioner and the de facto complainant was against her consent, the crux of the contentions raised by the de facto complainant is that the petitioner resorted to sexual intercourse by giving false promise of marriage to her. It is to be noted that the allegation of rape levelled against the petitioner is not in respect of a single incident. Over a period of about three months, the petitioner is alleged to have maintained sexual relationship with the de facto complainant under the false promise of marriage offered to her. Having regard to the tenure of the above period when the petitioner allegedly resorted to sexual relationship with the de facto complainant, it is not possible to attribute any credence upon the contention of the de facto complainant that on all such occasions, the petitioner has resorted to force and perpetrated the crime against her consent. Thus, the vague and superficial allegation in the First Information Statement about the absence of consent on the part of the de facto complainant, cannot be accepted on face value.

6. As already stated above, the First Information Statement given by the de facto complainant would reveal that she was fully aware of the fact that the petitioner is a married man. That being so, the offer of marriage alleged to have been made by the petitioner cannot be co