Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Charges in Long-Term Relationship Case, Distinguishes Broken Promise from False Promise

ERNAKULAM: In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice G. Girish, has quashed criminal proceedings including charges of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against a man, holding that a long-term consensual relationship, even one involving a broken promise of marriage, does not automatically constitute rape. The court emphasized that the prolonged nature of the relationship, which began while the complainant was still married to another man, indicated that her consent was not based on a "misconception of fact."

---

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Pradeep, sought to quash the proceedings against him in S.C No.802/2019, which included charges under Sections 376 (Rape), 493 (Cohabitation by deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage), and 496 (Fraudulently going through a marriage ceremony) of the IPC.

The prosecution's case, initiated by a widow (the de facto complainant), alleged that she and the petitioner began a relationship in 2009. She claimed he engaged in sexual intercourse with her under the promise of marriage. This relationship continued even while her husband was alive (he passed away in 2013) and persisted for several years thereafter. The complainant alleged that the petitioner performed a symbolic marriage by tying a knot in her gold chain. However, he later married another woman in 2014 but allegedly continued his physical relationship with the complainant. The relationship soured in 2017 when the petitioner decided to end contact, leading to the criminal complaint.

---

Arguments from Both Sides

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the relationship was entirely consensual and denied ever making a promise of marriage. He contended that the facts of the case did not meet the legal threshold for the offence of rape.

The complainant’s counsel maintained that her consent was obtained under the false pretext of marriage, which vitiated her consent, thereby making the sexual acts rape under Section 376 IPC.

---

Court's Analysis and Legal Precedents

Justice G. Girish undertook a detailed analysis of the law surrounding consent, particularly in cases involving a "promise to marry."

On Charges under Sections 493 & 496 IPC: The court first summarily dismissed the charges under Sections 493 and 496 IPC, noting a procedural bar. It held that under Section 198 of the Cr.P.C, a court cannot take cognizance of these offences based on a police report; it requires a direct complaint from the aggrieved person. Therefore, prosecution on these grounds was not maintainable.

On the Rape Charge (Section 376 IPC): The central issue was whether the complainant's consent was vitiated by a "misconception of fact." The court made several key observations:

> "It is not possible to accept the contention of the de facto complainant that she had extended consent for sexual relationship with the petitioner at a time when her husband was alive, believing the offer made by the petitioner to marry her."

The judgment highlighted that the relationship began in 2009, four years before the complainant's husband died, and continued for another four years after his death. The court found it implausible that a married woman would consent to a long-term affair solely based on a future promise of marriage.

The court also noted the complainant's admission that she continued the relationship even after learning of the petitioner's marriage to another woman in 2014. This conduct, the court reasoned, undermined her claim that her consent was contingent on marriage to the petitioner.

> "An overall analysis of the relationship between the petitioner and the de facto complainant for a period of more than eight years... would make it clear that the consensual sex between the de facto complainant and the petitioner cannot be termed as rape."

Citing Supreme Court precedents like Uday v. State of Karnataka and Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana , the High Court reiterated the distinction between a mere "breach of a promise" and a "false promise" made with mala fide intent from the outset. For a case to qualify as rape, the prosecution must establish that the accused had no intention of marrying the victim from the very beginning and used the promise solely to satisfy his lust.

---

Final Verdict

Concluding that the essential ingredients for the offence of rape were absent, the court found that the eight-year-long cohabitation resembled a consensual relationship akin to that of a husband and wife.

> "The fact that the accused went in search of greener pasture... by itself will not bring his prior relationship with the victim within the meaning of rape."

The court ruled that compelling the petitioner to face trial would be an abuse of the legal process. Consequently, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed all proceedings against the petitioner in S.C No.802/2019.