Non-Disclosure Of Serious Offence When Earlier Crime Was Registered Against Same Accused By Same Complainant Would Show Falsity Of Allegations: Kerala High Court

The Criminal Miscellaneous Case was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash an FIR and a Charge Sheet in a case registered under Sections 450, 506(i), 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(l) of IPC.

The Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen said, “Following the ratio of the above, indisputably non-disclosure of a serious offence within a reasonable time or at least when an earlier crime was registered against the same accused at the instance of the same de facto complainant would show falsity of the allegations and making the procedure of law as an abuse. That apart, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, similar allegations raised by the de facto complainant against other siblings of the petitioner.”

Advocate K.P.Viswambharan represented the Petitioner while Public Prosecutor Sheeba Thomas represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

It was alleged in this case that while the husband of the de facto complainant went for a tour along with the business people in Kolakkad during 2017, the accused, who is the elder brother of the husband of the de facto complainant, criminally trespassed upon the residence of the de facto complainant and assaulted her. Allegation of rape was also raised. A case was registered and after investigation and a final report was filed alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 450, 506(i), 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(l) of IPC.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the fact that the de facto complainant is the wife of the younger brother of the petitioner, and the parties are close relatives. It was the petitioner’s case that there was dissatisfaction on the part of the de facto complainant and her husband in the matter of allotment of shares.

It was noted that in the FIS, the allegation was that during the year 2017, she was subjected to rape and in the final report, the allegations were exaggerated. The same were to the effect that during November 2017 and before and after that she was subjected to rape repeatedly, by the petitioner which was in deviation from her allegation in the first information statement disclosing a solitary incident. It was further noticed that the allegation as to commission of rape was alleged for the first time only on December 26, 2018, that too, even not disclosing the same in the First Information Statement given in the earlier cirme, registered at the instance of the de facto complainant against the petitioner based on her statement given on December 22, 2018.

Reference was made to the judgment in Batlanki Keshav (Kesava) Kumar Anurag v. State of Telangana (2025), wherein it was observed that non-disclosure of the occurrence in the first FIR and disclosure of the same in the second FIR was fatal to the case of the de facto complainant as the same was contradictory.

“Having found that the allegations are not trustworthy for the reasons already extracted, it could not be held that prima facie offences alleged by the prosecution as per the impugned final report is established, warranting trial. On the contrary, the entire proceedings are abuse of process of court”, it held.

Thus, the Bench allowed the Petition and quashed the chargesheet and FIR.

Cause Title: XXX v. XXX (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:39563)

Petitioner: Advocates K.P.Viswambharan, Nabil Khader

Respondent: Public Prosecutor Sheeba Thomas

Click here to read/download Order