SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 150

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.PRATHEEP KUMAR, J
NIDHEESH LAL R.P – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 10792 OF 2025 | CRIME NO.1445/2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.K.MOHAMMED RAFEEQ, SRI.BIBIN MATHEW, SRI.P.M.MATHEW, SRI.AMARNATH R LAL, SHRI.SANALDEV E.P., SMT.VISHNUMAYA ANANDAN, SHRI.SONYMON ANTONY, SMT.SHIFANA M., SHRI.ABHIJITH P.A.
For the Respondents: SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR-SRI.A.VIPIN NARAYAN

Consent and prior marriage preclude the possibility of criminal liability for alleged sexual abuse.

Headnote:The petitioner, accused in Crime No.1445/2024 of sexual abuse, contends the allegations do not constitute an offence under relevant statutes stated in the judgment. The court finds the relationship to be consensual, as the complainant was already married; therefore, the case is quashed. The core issues include whether the allegations constitute an indictable offence. The decisive reasoning centers on the lack of legal basis given the complainant's existing marriage. In conclusion, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings.

Table of Content
1. introduction of the case and parties involved. (Para 1)
2. petitioner's argument regarding consent. (Para 2)
3. court's observation on consensual relationship. (Para 4)
4. final conclusion to quash proceedings. (Para 5)

O R D E R Dated this the 6th day of January, 2026 Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1445/2024 of Kodungallur Police Station, Thrissur, which is now pending as C.P. No.20/2025 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungallur. The offence alleged against the petitioner is that he has sexually abused the defacto complainant after promising to marry her.

2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even if the entire allegations levelled against the petitioner are believed as such, the same will not constitute the offence alleged against the petitioner. Therefore, he prayed for quashing all further proceedings against the petitioner.

3. The petition was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. In the FI statement itself, the defacto complainant stated that she was already married to another person and that the relationship with her husband strained. It was at that time, she came in contact with the petitioner and thereafter maintained relationship with him during the period from June, 2024 onwards. It is also stated that he has taken her to a temple at Paravur and tied a knot around her neck secretly and thereafter they started living together and continued the relationship with each other. Even from the above allegations, it can be seen that the relationship between them was a consensual one. Her claim that she had given consent for the relationship because of the promise of marriage could not be believed as she was already married to another person. In the above circumstances, the allegations against the petitioner do not constitute the offence punishable under Sections 69 and 74 of the BNS and as such no useful purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. In the result, this Criminal M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner in C.P. No.20/2025 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodungallur, is quashed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top