The Kerala High Court recently observed that if a man retracts his promise to marry a woman, the consensual sex they have had will not constitute rape unless it is established that the consent was obtained by him by giving false promise of marriage with no intention of adhering to it, and that the promise made was false to his knowledge.

The observations were made by the court in its decision on the petition by the accused seeking quashing of the FIR registered by the police in 2019. The FIR was registered under Sections 406, 420 and 376 of IPC at the Peramangalam Police Station.

Quashing the rape case against a 33-year-old man, Justice Kauser Edappagath said “the relationship between the accused and the complainant appears to have been purely consensual in nature. There is no allegation that when he promised to marry her, it was done in bad  intention to deceive her”, said the court.

The woman in the FIR alleged that between 2010 and March 2019, the accused, on the false pretext of marriage, had sexual intercourse with her at several places in India and abroad. She also accused the man of inducing her to pay him Rs 15 Lakh and some gold and then committing cheating and criminal breach of trust by not returning them to her. 

According to the woman, when she came to know in 2013-14 that the accused was already married, he told her that he was living separately for the last more than four months and was moving for divorce.

On behalf of the accused, it was contended by his lawyer that the criminal proceedings had been initiated against him on false and malicious basis. It was averred that the allegations levelled against the petitioner did not prima facie constitute any offence against the petitioner. 

The lawyers representing the complainant contended that the the woman’s statement clearly disclosed serious allegations of sexual assault, and in such a scenario, it would be impermissible to quash the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The court said the crucial issue to be considered here was whether the allegations indicate that the accused had indeed induced the victim into a sexual relationship on a false promise of marriage.

The Court added that although the woman had stated that the petitioner sexually assaulted her at his house in Abu Dhabi, at Radha Park hotel in Chennai and at his residence in Chennai, the dates and time of such incidents and other details of those alleged sexual acts had not been provided.

Referring to the investigation, the court said the woman “upon interrogation” could not identify the hotel Radha Park or the room to support her statement.

Observing that the accused and the woman admittedly were in “consensual relationship” right from 2010 until 2019, the court said she became aware of the petitioner’s marriage in 2013-14 but “still, she continued the relationship and had sexual intercourse with him”.

The court also took note of the fact that the parents of the accused had met with the parents of the woman to discuss marriage proposal. However, she “withdrew” from the marriage after becoming aware of some other relationships of the petitioner with other women.

“It is apparent that the petitioner had no mala fide intention or clandestine motives to conduct the alleged rape under the pretext of marriage. Further, even as per the allegations, it is evident that the marriage could not be materialised as the 4th respondent withdrew from the marriage, doubting the petitioner’s morality and on account of other unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner”, the court said.

Referring to a Facebook post where the woman had raised allegations against the accused, the court said, “A perusal of the same would show that there is no allegation of any sexual assault or rape against the petitioner”.

The court termed the allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust as vague, and ruled that offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC are not attracted.

“The only allegation in the FIS is that the petitioner has obtained a total sum of Rs 15,00,000/- and five sovereigns of gold ornaments giving a false promise of marriage. There is no allegation that there was an intention to deceive on the part of the petitioner at the time of handing over the money and gold ornaments,” the bench said.

This the criminal proceedings against the petitioner accused were quashed by the Court.

Case Title: Sreekanth Sasidharan v. State of Kerala & Ors.