The relationship was deemed consensual, and charges under Sections 376 IPC were quashed, while Section 420 IPC remained.

O R D E R

(Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2026)

The petitioner is the accused in S.C No.1520 of 2024 on the file of the Fast Track Special Court, Kollam, arising out of Crime No.1211 of 2023 of Paravoor Police Station. He filed this petition under Section 528 BNSS praying for quashing all further proceedings against him. The offences alleged against the petitioner is under Sections 376 , 376(2)(n) and 420 of IPC .

2. The prosecution case is that the accused, after making friendship with the de facto complainant who was working in Australia, over Facebook, sexually abused her after promising to marry her and received a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- and articles including gold ornaments worth Rs.10,00,000/- and thereby, cheated her.

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 Public Prosecutor.

5. Though notice was served on the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant, she did not turn up.

6. On a perusal of the FI statement, it can be seen that the petitioner made friendship with the de facto complainant working in Australia. It is alleged that on 31.12.2013, at about 12 noon, the petitioner reached the residence of the de facto complainant and after discussing about the marriage, stayed overnight in his residence and it was at that time he allegedly committed rape upon her, for the first time. As per the FI statement, thereafter, when she returned from the residence of the petitioner, he promised to marry her. In the 164 Cr.PC statement given by the de facto complainant also a similar version is given. It appears that, thereafter, on several occasions, they met together at various places and had sexual relationship with each other. It is also alleged that, in the meantime, the petitioner received a total sum of Rs.25,00,000/- and articles including gold worth Rs.10,00,000/- from her.

7. On a perusal of the FI statement, it can be seen that the relationship between the petitioner and the de facto complainant was a consensual one. Even as per the FI statement and 164 Cr.PC statement, the petitioner had given promise of marriage only after the first relationship between them.

8. In the above circumstances, there is no merit in the case of the prosecution that the de facto complainant had given consent for physical relationship because of the promise of marriage. Therefore, the allegations levelled against the petitioner do not make out the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC . On the other hand, the allegations in the FI Statement, prima facie makes out the offence under Section 420 . 9. In the above circumstance, this Crl.M.C is liable to be allowed in part and the charge against the petition under Sections 376 and 376(2)(n) is liable to be quashed and the charge under is not liable to be quashed. In the result, this Crl. M.C is allowed in part. All further proceedings against the petitioner in respect of the offences punishable under and 376(2)(n) is quashed. However, the prayer to quash the charge under is rejected.

Sd/-