The Kerala High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a husband accused of rape by his wife after observing that the provisions of the POCSO Act are being misused by certain groups of people to wreak vengeance.

The Court allowed the Petition filed by a husband (Petitioner) under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash offences alleged by the prosecution under Sections 354D, 450 and 376(2)(n) of the IPC as well as Section 6 read with 5(l) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The wife (defacto complainant) had alleged that there was a “love relationship” between the couple prior to their marriage when she was a minor.

A Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed, “Prima facie, it appears that the entire allegations are raised with ulterior motives by the wife against the husband by misusing the provisions of the PoCSO Act and the penal provisions of IPC at a much belated stage after the marriage was solemnized. Therefore, prima facie allegations are found unsustainable. In view of the matter, by exercising power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this matter would require quashment.

Advocate C.R. Reghunathan represented the Petitioner, while Advocate K.K. Razia appeared for the Respondents.

The prosecution alleged that the Petitioner subjected the defacto complainant to sexual intercourse when she was aged 16 years and 11 months.

The High Court noted that the wife had lodged the complaint three years and one month after their marriage when the marital relationship was estranged and they became rivals regarding coitus between them before the marriage when she allegedly was a minor.

When the facts of the case are scanned, if the same reveals that the allegations are levelled with ulterior motives and the same are not digestible to prudence, the courts shall exercise its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash the false and frivolous litigations at the threshold,” the Bench remarked.

The Court also noted that when the defacto complainant was asked to justify the delay in lodging the FIR even after the solemnization of marriage for a period of three years, she failed to offer either a sufficient explanation or even a remotely sufficient explanation in any manner.

In the instant case, the parties are admittedly married, as evident from Annexure A2 marriage certificate, on 19.06.2017 and now their status is that of husband and wife. As per the prosecution allegations, the defacto complainant was subjected to sexual intercourse during the month of June, 2017 also. If the same is after marriage on 19.06.2017, no offence would be attracted as the same is after marriage,” the Bench explained.

Consequently, the Court quashed the criminal case and observed that “now a days, the provisions of the PoCSO Act are being misused by certain group of persons to wreak vengeance and also to make a strong case against their rivals, so as to obtain ulterior motives therefrom. Therefore, when the courts addressing the genuineness of the case, by exercising the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., have a duty to segregate the grains from the chaff to analyse whether the allegations, if taken together in the facts of a particular case, would constitute the offences alleged and the same are prima facie digestible to prudence.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition.

Cause Title: X v. State of Kerala & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:90312)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates C.R.Reghunathan, R.Balakrishnan and B.Harrylal

Respondents: Advocate K.K.Razia; Public Prosecutor M P Prasanth

Click here to read/download the Judgment