Back
Married Woman's Consent Not Induced by Promise of Marriage Alone: Kerala HC Quashes Case
The recently quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused of sexual intercourse on the promise of marriage, observing that a married woman who another man to a hotel cannot claim her consent was induced solely by such a promise.
Justice Jobin Sebastian, presiding over the , allowed the petition under , and quashed the FIR in Crime No.1440/2025 of .
Case Background
The petitioner, Habibur Rahman, was charged under and . The prosecution alleged that on , Rahman took the de facto complainant — a married woman with two children — to a hotel in Kovalam, administered sedatives in her food, had sexual intercourse with her on the false promise of marriage, and later sent her nude photographs via WhatsApp.
Subsequently, the de facto complainant filed an affidavit stating that the matter had been amicably settled through family intervention and expressed no interest in continuing the prosecution. The Senior Public Prosecutor confirmed the settlement upon instructions from the investigating officer.
Arguments and Legal Analysis
Counsel for the petitioner sought quashing based on the settlement, while the court acknowledged the gravity of the allegations. However, Justice Sebastian examined the merits of the case, noting that the de facto complainant was a married woman with a living husband.
The court held that the
of Section 69 BNS — requiring
or a
without intention — were not established.
"A married woman who
another man to a hotel room and has sexual intercourse with him cannot, merely on the basis of an allegation of a promise of marriage, contend that the sexual relationship was induced solely by such promise, particularly when her
was not in dispute,"
the judge observed.
Key Observations
-
"Even if the allegations contained in the FIS are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, the required to constitute an offence under Section 69 of the BNS are not made out."
-
"The materials placed on record do not disclose the commission of an offence under Section 69 of the BNS."
-
Given the settlement,
"the possibility of a successful prosecution is remote and bleak. The continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would only amount to an ."
Decision
Allowing the petition, Justice Jobin Sebastian quashed the FIR and all further proceedings against Habibur Rahman. The court emphasized that while the offence was serious and involved societal interest, the absence of legal ingredients and the amicable settlement warranted the exercise of under Section 528 BNSS.
