In a case revolving around the question whether an eight-year long consensual relationship, allegedly induced by a promise of marriage, could be classified as rape, a Single Judge Bench of G. Girish, J., observed that the facts did not satisfy the essential requirements for prosecuting the accused for the offence of rape, and therefore, the proceedings against the accused were unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

In 2009, the accused befriended the de facto complainant, a widow with two children, by calling her over mobile phone and rendering financial assistance to her.

He came to the room which the widow was occupying in connection with her business and indulged in a sexual relationship after making her believe that he would marry her. Following her husband’s death in 2013, the accused resided with her and continued the relationship. At one point, he even tied a knot in her gold chain before a lamp and candle, making her believe that he had married her.

Later, she found out that he had married another woman, but he continued to assure her that she alone was his wife and continued the physical relationship with her. The widow also told the accused’s wife that even before he had married the woman, he was living as husband and wife with her. But on 04-11-2017, the accused called and informed the widow that he did not want to continue the relationship, and thereafter, she alleged the offences under Sections 493, 496, and 376 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’).

However, the accused contended that the relationship was consensual and that the offences alleged were not legally sustainable. He denied the accusation that he had offered to marry the de facto complainant.

The Court held that the sexual relationship between the accused and the widow was consensual and that the said relationship could not be classified as rape as she had maintained the relationship even when her husband was alive, and continued it for years after his death, knowing that the accused had married another woman in 2014.

The Court opined that the consent given by the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse with a person with whom she is deeply in love with, on a promise that he would marry her, cannot be considered to be given under a misconception of fact.

Consequently, the Court held that the proceeding initiated against the accused in connection with the commission of rape, was prima facie unsustainable.

The Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against the accused, holding that the final report and accompanying records relied on by the prosecution failed to bring out the essential requirements for the alleged offence under Section 376 IPC.

Case Title : [Pradeep v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 12351, decided on 17-11-2025]