The court emphasized consensual relationships and the importance of intent in determining charges under IPC sections 376(2)(n) and 406.

ORDER

Dated this the 25^th day of March, 2026 The sole accused in Crime No.9930/2025 of Perinthalmanna police station, now pending as C.P.No.44/2025 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perinthalmanna filed this Crl.M.C. under Section 528 of BNSS, praying for quashing all further proceedings against him. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 376 (2)(n) & 406 of IPC .

2. The prosecution case is that the accused after making friendship with the defacto complainant and after promising to marry her repeatedly committed rape upon her during the period from 2013 till March 2018 and in the meantime received a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for going to Germany and thereafter refused to marry her and also failed to repay the amount to her and thereby he is alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even if the entire allegations leveled against the petitioner are believed as such, the same will not constitute the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (n) of IPC . Therefore, he prayed for quashing all further proceedings against the petitioner.

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

5. From the FI Statement it is revealed that the petitioner and the defacto complainant were friends since childhood. Thereafter, they became lovers and they had physical relationship with each other during the period from 2013 till 2018, at different places on different dates. It is also alleged that in the meantime the petitioner wanted to go abroad and for that purpose, he received a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from the defacto complainant. From the averments in the FI Statement as well as from the statement of the witnesses, it is also revealed that the relationship between the petitioner and the defacto complainant was known to both families.

6. According to the petitioner, the marriage could not be solemnized as the defacto complainant converted to Christianity and also suffering from mental illness. To substantiate the said contention, the learned counsel has relied upon Annexure 3 whatsapp chats sent by the defacto complainant and her father. On a perusal of Annexure 3, it appears that the parents of the petitioner was against the proposed marriage with the defaco complainant. In one of the messages, the defacto complainant herself states that she is ready to put an end to the relationship with the petitioner.

7. Since from the averments in the FIS as well as from the statement of witnesses, it is revealed that, the petitioner and the defacto complainant became lovers from their childhood and they had physical relationship with each other continuously for the period from 2013 to 2018 at different places on different dates it is prima facie revealed that the relationship between them was a consensual one. It appears that thereafter due to one reason or another the relationship got strained and the marriage could not be solemnized. From the materials available on record there is nothing to show that, from the very beginning of their relationship the petitioner had no intention to marry the defacto complainant. In the absence of any such evidence, the allegations raised against the petitioner does not make out the offence punishable under Section 376 (2)(n) of IPC . On the other hand, the allegations leveled against the petitioner prima facie makes out the offence punishable under Section 406 or cheating as the case may be. Therefore, this Crl.M.C. is liable to be allowed in part as follows;