Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 26715
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. Pratheep Kumar, J
Noorudheen – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 282 OF 2026 | CRIME NO.696/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Nireesh Mathew
For the Respondents: Akhil George, Breez.M.S
Quashing permissible for consensual relationship and settlement despite SC/ST Act offences to prevent abuse of process.
Headnote:The petitioner sought quashing of proceedings under Section 69 of BNS and Sections 3 to 5 of SC/ST (POA) Act, alleging non-consensual acts with a Scheduled Caste complainant. Prosecution case involved promise of marriage leading to rape. Court found consensual relationship based on FI statement and settlement affidavit from complainant. Issues framed around quashing due to settlement. Ratio: Consensual relationship and settlement render continuation an abuse of process. Proceedings in Crime No. 696/2025 quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition to quash sc/st and bns offences post-consensual relationship. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. settlement affidavit supported by prosecution statement. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. consensual acts and settlement justify quashing proceedings. (Para 6) |
O R D E R
(Dated this the 06th day of April, 2026)
The accused in Crime No. 696 of 2025 of Parappanagadi Police Station filed this Crl.MC under Section 528 BNS S praying for quashing all further proceedings against him. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 69 of and Sections 3 to 5 of SC/ST (POA) Act.
2. The prosecution case is that the accused who is not a member of SC/ST community, with the knowledge that the defacto complainant is a member of Scheduled caste community made friendship with her, after promising to marry her committed rape upon her and thereafter he refused to marry her and thereby he is alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences.
3. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, now the entire dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant has been settled. Therefore, he prayed for quashing all further proceedings against the petitioner.
4. The defacto complainant also filed an affidavit stating that the matter has been settled with the petitioner and she does not want to proceed with this case.
5. The petition was strongly opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. However upon instruction he submitted that, the defacto complainant had given signed statement to the SHO in tune with the averments in the affidavit filed before this Court.
6. On a perusal of the FI Statement, it can be seen that the petitioner and the defacto complainant became lovers and while so, they had sexual relationship with each other at different places and on different dates. Therefore, prima facie it is appears that the relationship between the petitioner and the defacto complainant was a consensual one. Moreover, now the entire dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant has been settled and she had filed an affidavit stating that she does not want to proceed with this case. 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 Crime No. 696 of 2025 of Parappanagadi Police Station, is quashed.
