The court upheld the validity of the prosecution's charges based on credible statements, emphasizing that defence arguments require trial court deliberation.

O R D E R

The accused in S.C.No.875/2017 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court, Muvattupuzha, has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, ‘Cr.PC’), to quash the proceedings against him in the aforesaid case. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Section s 376 , 377 & 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ‘ IPC ').

2. The prosecution case is that on 10.12.2016, at about 11:00 p.m., the petitioner resorted to rape and unnatural sex upon the de facto complainant/second respondent in a hospital room of an Ayurvedic Eye Hospital at Koothattukulam, where the de facto complainant was attending the petitioner as a bystander in that hospital where he was being treated for injuries sustained to his eyes.

3. The petitioner and the de facto complainant are said to have been friends from the year 2013 onwards while both of them were studying in Civil Service Coaching Centre. Thereafter, the petitioner got employment as Assistant Commandant in the CRPF. The petitioner and the de facto complainant are said to have maintained their friendship even after the petitioner started working in the paramilitary force. The de facto complainant is said to have visited Kashmir and renewed their friendship during the year 2015 while the petitioner was posted there. It is thereafter that the petitioner is said to have expressed his desire to marry the de facto complainant, to which she also wholeheartedly agreed. While so, the petitioner suffered serious injuries to his eyes in stone pelting by insurgents. It is in connection with the treatment for the above injuries that the petitioner is said to have got admitted at the Ayurvedic Eye Hospital at Koothattukulam in the month of December, 2016. The de facto complainant is said to have volunteered to attend the petitioner as a bystander at the hospital since the age-old parents of the petitioner were not able to take care of him. According to the de facto complainant, she resisted the move of the petitioner to have sexual intercourse with her in the night of 10.12.2016 in that hospital room. Thereupon the petitioner allegedly overpowered her, while reassuring his promise of marriage, and resorted to forceful sexual intercourse and oral sex. The de facto complainant is said to have left that hospital in the wee hours of the next day after she regained consciousness from the trauma suffered as a result of the outrageous acts of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner thereafter retracted from his promise of marriage and threatened the de facto complainant that, if she continued to insist for marriage with him, he would publish her nude photos in internet. The petitioner is also alleged to have criminally intimidated the de facto complainant with life threat. However, she preferred a formal complaint before the Police on 11.01.2017.

4. In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that he is a victim of honeytrap laid by the de facto complainant. According to the petitioner, the allegations levelled by the de facto complainant are per se unbelievable, and hence liable to be ignored.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

6. The statements given by the de facto complainant to the investigating agency on multiple occasions, as well as the statement which she tendered to the learned Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.PC, would clearly bring home the essential requisites of the offence of rape and carnal intercourse against the order of nature punishable under Section s 376 & 377 IPC . According to the de facto complainant, the petitioner and herself had resolved to get married,