Delay in filing complaints, evidence of consensual relationship results in quashing of proceedings.

ORDER

Dated this the 18^th day of February, 2026 The accused in S.C.No.419/2019 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Special Court), Kottayam arising out of Crime No.742/2017 of Thrikkodithanam police station, filed this Crl.M.C. under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying for quashing all further proceedings against him. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 352 , 354, 376, 312, 493 of IPC .

2. The prosecution case is that the accused with the intention to satisfy his sexual lust, pretended love towards the defacto complainant, promised to marry her and committed rape upon her on 29.08.2003 in a rented house at Changanasserry Village. Thereafter, on 03.10.2003 he called the defacto complainant to Changanasserry at about 1 p.m., took her in his motorcycle along a dilapidated road for about 5 years and thereafter at about 2 p.m., on 04.10.2003 repeatedly committed rape upon her in his rented house at Kavalam. It is alleged that thereafter on various dates at different places he committed rape upon her after promising to marry her.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the alleged incident was in 2003, the FIR was registered only in 2017, after a long period of 13 years without offering any explanantion. Further according to the learned counsel, even if the entire allegations leveled against the petitioner is believed as such, the same does not constitute the offences as alleged against him. Therefore, he prayed for quashing all further proceedings against the petitioner.

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

Though notice was served on the defacto complainant/2nd respondent, she did not turn up.

5. On a perusal of the complaint filed by the defacto complainant, it can be seen that the petitioner is the cousin of the defacto complainant. Since childhood they were in love. According to her the first incident of alleged rape occurred in the year 2003 and thereafter they continued the relationship at different places on different dates and she claims that she has not reported the police as the petitioner promised to marry her. The learned counsel has relied upon Annexure A6 FIR and Annexure A7 final report in which the defacto complainant is the 2^nd respondent herein. In the above case also the allegation is that, the accused therein promised to marry her and committed rape upon her.

6. The petitioner herein is a practicing lawyer and a post graduate in law who is well aware of the law of the land. Inspite of the fact that the alleged incident of rape was in the year 2003, she waited till 2017 to report the matter to the police. On a perusal of the complaint, primafacie it is revealed that the relationship between herself and the petitioner was a consensual one. Her claim that the petitioner committed rape upon her repeatedly for several years cannot be believed. There is absolutely no evidence to show that she had given consent under any misconception of facts. Annexure A4 certificate produced by the petitioner shows that he already married another lady on 01.11.1998. Since the 2^nd respondent is that first cousin of the petitioner, there is every reason to believe that she was aware of the fact that the petitioner was already married and on that ground also her claim that she had given consent because of the promise of marriage could not be believed. 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 the same is liable to be quashed.

In the result, this Crl. M.C is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner in S.C.No.419/2019 on t