Consent must be unequivocal, and allegations must be substantiated by evidence to support charge under Section 376 IPC.

O R D E R

(Dated this the 28th day of January, 2026)

The petitioner is the 1^st accused in S.C No.1653 of 2021 on the file of the Fast Track Special Court (PoCSO), Karunagappally, arising out of Crime No.720 of 2020 of Ochira Police Station. He filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.PC praying for quashing all further proceedings against him. The offences alleged against the petitioner and the other accused person are under Sections 376 , 420, 409, 509 and 506 r/w Section

34 of IPC .

2. The prosecution case is that the 1^st accused with an intention to satisfy his sexual lust, sexually abused the de facto complainant, who approached him for legal advice, repeatedly since February 2019 at different places, after promising to marry her. It is also alleged that he obtained her nude photographs, blackmailed her and received a sum of Rs.12 lakhs and thereafter, he along with the 2^nd accused, intimidated to do away with her and thereby, they are alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences.

3. 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 punishable under Section 376 IPC . Therefore, he prayed for quashing all further proceedings against the petitioner.

4. The petition was strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the de facto complainant/2^nd respondent as well as by the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. In the FI statement, it is alleged that the de facto complainant came in contact with the petitioner in connection with the case of her son in November 2018. Thereafter, on one day between 17.02.2019 and 24.02.2019 at about 10.00 a.m., the petitioner allegedly went to her residence and committed rape upon her by force. It is also alleged that the petitioner took her nude photographs. It is further alleged that, when the petitioner threatened to upload the above photographs in social media, she accompanied him to different hotels at different places on different dates and they had sexual relationship with each other. It is also alleged that the petitioner promised to marry her and that is why she accompanied him to different hotels and permitted him to have sexual intercourse with her.

6. At the beginning of the FI statement, it is stated that the petitioner, after promising to marry the de facto complainant, had sexual intercourse with her and threatened her with nude photographs, received a sum of Rs.12 lakhs and thereby cheated her.

7. The learned counsel for the de facto complainant submitted that the 1^st incident of sexual relationship itself is sufficient to constitute the offence of rape. It is true that if the allegation with respect to the 1^st incident is taken separately, it appears that the relationship was without her consent. However, when the FI statement is taken and evaluated in toto, it is revealed that, thereafter, she accompanied the petitioner to different hotels on different dates, and they had sexual intercourse with each other on the alleged promise of marriage. Even from the FI statement, it is revealed that the petitioner was already married to another person and as such, the alleged promise of marriage cannot be believed. Therefore, it is to be held that the relationship between the petitioner and the de facto complainant was a consensual one and the claim that the consent was given on the promise of marriage cannot be true and correct. If so, the allegations in the FI statement are not sufficient to make out an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and as such, the charge against the p