The court held that consensual relationships cannot constitute an offence under Section 376 IPC without clear evidence of misconception or coercion.

O R D E R Dated this the 10^th day of March, 2026 The accused in SC. No.109/2017 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Palakkad, arising out of crime No.988/2016 of Town North Police Station, Palakkad, filed this criminal revision petition aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Judge dated 21.7.2018, dismissing his application for discharge.

The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 376 of IPC .

2. The prosecution case is that the accused after promising to marry the defacto complainant, had sexual relationship with her, during the period from

5.12.2015 till 31.10.2016 and thereafter refused to marry her.

3. The application filed by the petitioner for discharge was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge as per the order dated 21.7.2018. Aggrieved by the said order, he preferred this revision petition.

4. 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 of PC. Therefore, he prayed for setting aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge and for discharging him.

5. The petition was strongly opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. On a perusal of the FI statement, it can be seen that the defacto complainant and the petitioner became lovers and they started living together like husband and wife for a period of two months. Thereafter the petitioner along with his relatives went to the residence of the defacto complainant with the proposal to marry the defacto complainant. Thereafter, due to one reason or another, the proposal failed, which ultimately resulted in registering this case.

7. From the evidence on record, it is revealed that after the petitioner and the defacto complainant became lovers, they started living like husband and wife and thereafter the relationship got strained because the proposal to marry the defacto complainant could not be fulfilled. There is every reason to believe that the relationship between them was a consensual one. At the same time, there is no material to show that from the very beginning, the petitioner had no intention to marry the defacto complainant. In the above circumstances, it cannot be held that the consent for sexual relationship was obtained under any misconception of facts or any vitiating circumstances. Therefore, the allegations levelled against the petitioner are not sufficient to constitute the offence under Section 376 of IPC and as such the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.M.C. No.308/2017 is liable to be set aside and the petitioner is liable to be discharged.

8. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.M.C. No.308/2017 in SC No.109/201, is set aside and the petitioner is discharged under Section

227 of Cr.P.C.