The court determined that consensual relationships do not constitute rape under Section 376 IPC, thus quashing the proceedings.

O R D E R

(Dated this the 25th day of March, 2026)

The accused in SC No. 518 of 2022 on the file of the Speical Court for trial of SC/ST Atrocities Act Cases, Thrissur arising out of Crime No. 24 of 2019 of Irinjalakuda Police Station filed this Crl.MC under Section 482 Cr.PC praying for quashing all further proceedings against him. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Section 376 (2)(n) and

506 of IPC and Section 3 (2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. 2. The prosecution case is that the accused who is not a member of SC/ST knowing that the defacto complainant is a member of SC community, after promising to marry her, committed rape upon her, took her nude photographs and threatened to post the photos in social media 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 as such are believed, the same will not make out 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 defacto complainant/ 2^nd respondent, she did not turn up.

6. On a perusal of the FI Statement, it can be seen that after the dissolution of the marriage of the defacto complainant, she became a friend of the petitioner. Their friendship continued for a long time and she accompanied him to various places and also had sexual relationship with each other at different places on different dates. Therefore, prima facie it is revealed that the relationship between the petitioner and the defacto complainant was a consensual one. Her claim is that she had given consent because of the promise of marriage given by the petitioner. Admittedly, the parties belong to different communities. It appears that subsequently the relationship got strained. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relying upon Annexure-A4 plaint would submit that the said suit was filed by his father against the defacto complainant seeking injunction and other reliefs. The said suit is seen filed on 18.12.2018. The present FIR was registered on 05.01.2019 after Annexure-A4. Therefore, it appears that during the subsistence of the relationship between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, the relationship got strained and thereafter she filed this complaint against the petitioner. In the evidence on record there is nothing to show that the defacto complainant had given consent for sexual relationship because of any misconception of facts and as such, the allegations leveled against the petitioner does not make out the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC . In the above circumstance, no useful purpose will served in continuing the proceedings against the petitioner as the same will only be an abuse of the process of court.

Therefore, this Crl.MC is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner in SC No. 518 of 2022 on the file of the Speical Court for trial of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Thrissur arising out of Crime No. 24 of