The Concept That Indian Women Will Not Lodge False Rape Case Cannot Be Now Followed Blindly: Kerala High Court
The complainant alleged that she was raped for four years on a false promise of marriage, but filed the FIR only three years after the alleged incident.
The Kerala High Court observed that, the concept that an Indian women would not lodge a false rape case could not be followed blindly as it noted that in recent years, allegation of rape, sexual molestation projected in many cases are without any iota of truth.
A Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed, “In cases where sexual assault has been alleged, the said concept has been carried for the past so many years, on the premise that, in Indian society, any girl would not make any allegation of sexual assault or any other mode of misconduct against a person, as the same would prejudice the right of the girl or woman, as the case may be. However, in recent years, this concept seems to be diluted and in less percentage of the complaints in this line, wherein allegation of rape, sexual molestation and other misconduct projected are without any iota of truth, so as to settle a score and also to compel the persons against whom allegations are made to heed the illegal demands of the complainants.”
The Petitioner was represented by Advocate U. K. Devidas, while the Respondents were represented by Public Prosecutor Jibu T.S.
Brief Facts
A complaint was filed against the Petitioner, alleging that he became acquainted with the Complainant in 2011 under the pretext of marriage and subjected her to rape between 2014 and 2019, on a false promise of marriage. The Petitioner therefore, approached this Court by way of a petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) for quashing of proceedings against him pending before the Sessions Court.
The Petitioner submitted that even it had been alleged in the FIR by the Complainant that the alleged rape happened between 2014 and 2019, the FIR was only lodged in 2019, and further that in her additional affidavit the Complainant had stated that there was no contact between the Petitioner and Complainant for a period of three years.
Respondent No.1, opposing the Petitioner’s submissions, stated that after the Petitioner withdrew from the marriage, the Complainant approached the Women Protection Officer. Though the Petitioner later reassured marriage, he again deviated from his promise, leading to an FIR under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1908 (IPC). Thus, the proceedings cannot be dismissed without allowing the prosecution to present evidence, and that in such a case, quashing of proceedings could not be considered, without permitting the prosecution to adduce evidence.
The Complainant filed an affidavit supporting the quashing of the proceeding, since she had no grievance against the Petitioner when the matter was taken up.
Reasoning of the Court
The Court said, “In fact, when there is a complaint as to commission of rape on the promise of marriage, again withdrawing from prosecution awaiting marriage, that too for a period of three years, without having any contact in between the parties is not digestible to prudence.”, noting that the parties were in a consensual relationship and that the alleged incident on May 30, 2014, occurred in continuation of that relationship. Despite this, the crime was registered only on April 20, 2019, as the Complainant had initially refrained from pursuing her 2016 complaint, relying on the Petitioner’s renewed assurance to marry her
The Court stated, “Therefore, the overt acts alleged against the petitioner herein is to be held as one with consent and it could not be held that the consent is vitiated by misconception of facts and the lethargy on the part of the defacto complainant would fortify the same. Therefore, the relationship between the defacto complainant and petitioner was purely consensual in nature. In such view of the matter, no materials made out in this matter to attract the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC, where the defacto complainant filed affidavit that she has no grievance in the matter of quashing the proceedings against the petitioner”.
Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, quashing the proceedings against the Petitioner pending before the Sessions Court.
Cause Title: Ajith v. State of Kerala & Anr. (Neutral Citation No. 2025:KER:21451)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate U. K. Devidas
Respondents: Public Prosecutor Jibu T.S; Advocate K.V. Bhadra Kumari
