Consent established between parties undermines allegations of serious offenses, enabling quashing of proceedings when parties have settled.

O R D E R

(Dated this the 18^th day of December, 2025)

The petitioner is the sole accused in C.P.No.5 of 2025 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Palakkad, arising out of Crime No.184 of 2024 of Palakkad Town South Police Station. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 376 (2)(n)

of IPC .

2. The prosecution case is that during the middle of the year 2022, the accused made friendship with the de facto complainant over the telephone, took her to a hotel room on 19.07.2023 and committed rape upon her. Thereafter, intimidating her with naked photographs taken on his mobile phone continued to commit rape upon her till 06.09.2023 and thereby, he is alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the entire disputes between the petitioner and the de facto complainant were settled. Therefore he prayed for quashing all further proceedings against the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant also submitted that the entire disputes between the petitioner and the de facto complainant were settled. Therefore, he also prayed for quashing all further proceedings against the petitioner.

5. The petition was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. However, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the de facto complainant had given a signed statement to the SHO in tune with the averments in the affidavit filed before the trial Court.

6. On a perusal of the FI statement, it is revealed that the petitioner and the de facto complainant came in contact with each other over phone. Thereafter, as requested by the petitioner, the de facto complainant accompanied him to a hotel room in which he allegedly committed rape upon her, without her consent. It appears that, thereafter, on several days, he accompanied him to various hotels and permitted him to have sexual intercourse with her.

7. From the above conduct of the de facto complainant in accompanying the petitioner to different hotels on different dates, it is to be presumed that their relationship was a consensual one. The above conclusion is substantiated by the affidavit filed by the de facto complainant, stating that the matter has been settled, and that further proceedings can be quashed.

8. In the above circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings against the petitioner and, as such, this Crl.M.C is liable to be allowed.

In the result, This Crl. M.C is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner in C.P.No.5 of 2025 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Palakkad, arising from Crime No.184 of 2024 of Palakkad Town South Police Station, is quashed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S.