Consent given under a promise of marriage does not negate the criminality where both parties are already married.

ORDER

Dated this the 28^th day of January, 2026 The petitioner is the sole accused in S.C.No.699/2025 on the file of Fast Track Special Court, Chengannur, arising out of Crime No.68/2025 of Vallikunnam police station. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 69 of BNS and 66(E) of IT Act .

2. The prosecution case is that the accused after promising to marry the defacto complainant committed rape upon her repeatedly, took her nude photos and videos and thereafter he refused to marry her and thereby he is alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences.

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

4. Though notice was served on the defacto complainant/2nd respondent, she did not turn up. The petition was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. On a perusal of the FI Statement given by the defacto complainant/2nd respondent, it is revealed that she had given consent for sexual intercourse on the basis of promise of marriage given by the petitioner. However, from the FI Statement itself it is revealed that, at the time of the alleged incident, both the petitioner as well as the defacto complainant were already married to other persons. In the above circumstances, the claim that she had given consent because of the promise of marriage cannot be believed. Since the relationship between the petitioner and the defacto complainant was a consensual one and the defacto complainant was already married to another person when the alleged promise of marriage was given by the petitioner, the offence under Section 69 of BNS is not made out in this case. In the FI Statement itself, it is also stated that her photographs were taken in the mobile phones of the petitioner as well as that of the defacto complainant and as such the offence under Section 66 (E) of the IT Act is also not made out. In the above circumstances, continuation of further proceedings against the petitioner will only be an abuse of the process of the Court 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 S.C.No.699/2025 on the file of Fast Track Special Court, Chengannur, arising out of Crime No.68/2025 of Vallikunnam police station, stands quashed.

Sd/-