Consent for sexual relations is critical; mere promise of marriage does not equate to coercion under IPC.

ORDER

Dated this the 24^th day of February, 2026 The sole accused in S.C. No. 201 of 2023 on the file of the Fast Track Special Court, Erattupetta, arising out of Crime No. 1584 of 2022 of Ettumanoor police station, has filed this Crl.Rev.Pet., against the order passed by the Fast Track Special Court, Erattupetta, dismissing the application filed by him under Section 227 of Cr.P.C for discharge. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 376 (1) and 376(2)(n) of the IPC .

2. The prosecution case is that the accused, who was already married to CW8, suppressing the above fact promised to marry the defacto complainant after making friendship with her through the website of Kerala Matrimony, committed rape upon her and thereby cheated her.

3. Contending that the allegations levelled against the petitioner do not constitute the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC , the petitioner filed Crl.M.P. No. 44 of 2025 under Sections 227 of the Cr.P.C., seeking discharge. However, the learned Special judge dismissed the said application, holding that the offences under Sections 376 (1) and 376(2)(n) of the are prima facie made out.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even if the entire allegations levelled against the petitioner as such is believed, the same will not constitute the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC . Therefore, he prayed for setting aside the order passed by the learned Special Judge in Crl.M.P. No. 44 of 2025 and for discharging the petitioner.

5. The petition was strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant and by the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. On a perusal of the FI statement, it is revealed that the defacto complainant who was a divorcee, became the friend of with the petitioner through a matrimonial site. According to the learned counsel for the defacto complainant, the petitioner promised to marry her after one year and that is why she had given consent to the petitioner for physical relationship.

7. From the FI statement, it is revealed that they had physical relationship with each other on several occasions, mostly at her residence and on another occasion inside the car of the petitioner.

From the FI statement it is revealed that in November 2021 she came to know that the petitioner is till residing along with his wife. In the FI statement, at one stage it is stated that after coming to know about the fact that the petitioner living along with his wife, she was mentally depressed and she had undergone some psychiatric treatment. However, at another stage, she states that thereafter the relationship between her and the petitioner became normal and they continued contact till 26.08.2022.

8. It is also revealed that the defacto complainant and the petitioner belong to two different religions. Since from the FI statement itself, it is revealed that even after the defacto complainant came to know that the petitioner was already married, she continued contact with the petitioner till 26.08.2022, her claim that she had given consent for sexual relationship because of the promise of marriage cannot be believed. Therefore, the allegations levelled against the petitioner do not constitute the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and as such no useful purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings against the petitioner.

9. In the above circumstances, the order of the learned Special judge dismissing Crl.M.P No. 44 of 2025 is liable to be set aside and the said application is liable to be allowed.

In the result, this Crl.Rev.Pet. is allowed. The order of the learned Special Judge dismissing Crl.M.P. No. 4