The court ruled that a false promise of marriage does not constitute rape unless coerced consent is established, emphasizing the need to evaluate consensual relationships.

ORDER

Dated : 27^th November, 2025

The petitioner is the sole accused in CP No. 25 of 2025 on the file of judicial magistrate of first class-1, Pathanamthitta, arising out of Crime No. 1465 of 2024 of Pathanamthitta police station. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Section 354 and 376(2)(n) IPC .

2. The prosecution case is that the accused, after making friendship with the defacto complainant through a matrimonial advertisement, promised to marry her, had sexual intercourse with her by force and against her will at different places on different days and thereafter, he refused to marry her.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even if the entire materials relied upon by the prosecution against the petitioner are accepted in its face value, the same will not constitute the offence under Section 376 IPC . Therefore, he prayed for quashing all further proceedings against the petitioner.

4. The petition was strongly opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. As per the F.I. Statement, the defacto complainant is working as IT professional in UK. Her first marriage with Abhilash Gopi was dissolved in October 2017. In the said marriage, she has a son aged 15. Since her family members insisted her to marry again, she registered her name in the matrimonial site 'Jeevan Sathi'. On 26.05.2021, the petitioner sent her a message expressing his interest and the same was accepted by her. Thereafter, there was telephone contact between them. On 08.03.2022, the petitioner promised to marry her. Accordingly, the defacto complainant reached the petitioner's residence at Kawdiar on 14.05.2022. Thereafter on 25.05.2022 she, along with the petitioner, decided to go to Kedarnath. Due to landslide, they could not go to Kedarnath. Thereafter, as instructed by the petitioner, they went to Kalahasthi Temple in Andhra Pradesh on 31.05.2022. At about 02.00 p.m. they reached a hotel there. Though she requested to take two separate rooms, the petitioner insisted that one room is enough and accordingly they stayed in one room. While she was sleeping in the bed, the accused woke up, grabbed her body and compelled her for physical relationship. At last she was compelled to submit to his demand and accordingly for the first time they had physical relationship. On the next day after returning from the temple, the petitioner, after promising to marry her, again had sexual intercourse with her, by force. On 14.06.2022, she returned to UK. Thereafter on 15.10.2022 she returned home, met the family members of the petitioner and discussed about their marriage. On 23.10.2022 when she went to the residence of the petitioner and discussed about the marriage with his brother, she came to know that the earlier marriage of the petitioner was not dissolved and only the divorce proceedings were pending. Therefore, the petitioner told her that there will be some delay in conducting their marriage. Thereafter, on 30.12.2022 she again returned to India and at that time the petitioner along with his mother went to the residence of the defacto complainant on 30.12.2022. At that time the petitioner hugged her and also kissed her. On 12.05.2023 she again returned from UK and on 16.05.2023 she went along with the petitioner for meditation to Kodaikanal, along with the petitioner's friend Dr. Sankar Ram. Though three separate rooms were taken in the hotel, during the night the petitioner went to the room of the defacto complainant and compelled her to have sexual intercourse with him. Though she initially resisted, finally, based upon his promise of marriage, she had to submit to his com