Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 56179
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, J
ANEESH JOSEPH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 7706 OF 2025 | SC NO.610 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.BINU BABUKUTTAN, SHRI.VIDHU M.UNNITHAN, SHRI.AROMALUNNI M.S, SHRI.RATHEESH C., SHRI.HARI SANKAR V., SMT.NIMA MERIYAM KOSHY
For the Respondents: SHRI.SAJI KUMAR P.G., SMT.HASNA JABIL, SMT.MAYA M N (PP)
The settlement between parties negates the need for further legal proceedings in consensual relationship cases involving alleged sexual offenses.
Headnote:This judgment involves the interpretation of IPC Sections 376(2)(n), 417, and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The facts present a consensual relationship between the accused and the complainant, which led to the alleged sexual offenses. The Court found that the entire dispute has been amicably settled, allowing for the quashing of all proceedings against the petitioner. The primary issues revolved around consent and the implications of the alleged offense. The Court held that further proceedings would serve no purpose given the settlement.
Result: All proceedings quashed as per Section 528 of B.N.S.S.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations involve consensual relationship. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. settlement of disputes between parties. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court observations on the nature of relationship. (Para 5 , 6) |
O R D E R
(Dated this the 5th day of December, 2025)
The petitioner is the sole accused in S.C No.610 of 2024 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Court-III, Alappuzha, arising out of Crime No.90 of 2024 of Mannancherry Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioner is under Sections 3 76(2)(n) and 417 of IPC and Sections 64 and 318(2) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act .
2. The prosecution case is that the accused who is not a member of a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, with the intention of satisfying his sexual lust, he made friendship with the de facto complainant, who is a member of scheduled caste community after promising to marry her, committed rape upon her repeatedly and thereafter, the accused refused to marry her and thereby he is alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, now the entire dispute between the petitioner and the de facto complainant have been settled and therefore, he prayed for quashing all further proceedings against him.
4. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent also submitted that the matter has been settled with the petitioner and further proceedings can be quashed. She also filed an affidavit stating that the matter has been settled.
5. On a perusal of the FI statement, it can be seen that, while the marriage of the petitioner was subsisting, he made friendship with the de facto complainant and they had sexual relationship with each other. Even though the de facto complainant was aware of the fact that the petitioner is a married person, she accompanied him to various places and permitted him to have a sexual relationship along with her. Therefore, it can be seen that the relationship between the petitioner and the de facto complainant was a consensual one. Moreover, now the entire disputes have been settled between the parties and, as such, no useful purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings against the petitioner.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor, upon instructions, also submitted that the de facto complainant has given a signed statement stating that the matter has been settled.
In the above circumstances, this Crl.M.C is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner in S.C No.610 of 2024 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Court-III, Alappuzha, arising from Crime No.90 of 2024 of Mannancherry Police Station, is quashed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S.
