Kerala HC Finds Rape Allegation Fabricated | Non-Disclosure In Prior FIR Against Same Accused Shows Abuse Of Legal Process
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen held that continuation of prosecution in a rape case, where the complainant failed to disclose the alleged serious offence in a prior complaint registered just days earlier against the same accused, constituted an abuse of court process. Invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court quashed the FIR and final report filed in the matter. The Court concluded that the allegations were not trustworthy, warranted no trial, and the prosecution was found to be an instance of legal process misuse. The matter pending before the Additional Sessions Court, Thalassery, was accordingly terminated.
The petitioner, the sole accused in Crime No. 537/2018 of Kelakom Police Station, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the FIR (Annexure A1) and charge sheet (Annexure A2) in the said crime, which had been taken cognizance of as S.C. No. 39/2020 before the Additional Sessions Court, Thalassery. The petitioner was accused of committing offences under Sections 450, 506(i), 376(2)(f), and 376(2)(l) of the Indian Penal Code.
According to the prosecution case, the complainant alleged that in 2017, during the absence of her husband who had gone on a business tour, the petitioner—her husband's elder brother—criminally trespassed into her residence, physically assaulted her, and committed sexual offences, including digital penetration. The complaint further stated that the petitioner had threatened her into silence. The FIR was registered on 26 December 2018 based on the complainant’s statement recorded on the same date.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the case was false and malicious, filed due to family property disputes following the father's will (Annexure A14) that had dissatisfied the complainant and her husband. He pointed out that an earlier complaint by the same complainant against the petitioner was recorded on 22 December 2018 and registered as Crime No. 528/2018, where no mention was made of the alleged sexual offences. This omission, it was argued, undermined the credibility of the later complaint.
It was also brought to the Court's notice that the complainant had filed similar cases against the petitioner’s other siblings against whom Crime Nos. 536/2018, 20/2019 and Crime Nos. 538/2018 and 526/2018 were filed. At least one of these cases (arising from Crime No. 538/2018) had resulted in acquittal. The petitioner argued that these instances demonstrated a pattern of vindictive and unfounded allegations due to animosity within the family.
The Public Prosecutor, while opposing the quashment plea, maintained that the complainant’s statement formed part of the present case record and that the investigation had yielded materials justifying a trial. It was also submitted that the complainant was deaf and mute, as reported by the investigating officer. However, the petitioner contested this, citing the First Information Statement, which only indicated partial hearing loss.
The final report in Crime No. 537/2018 alleged repeated incidents of rape between 2016 and March 2018, deviating from the original allegation in the FIS, which mentioned a single occurrence in 2017. This variation in statements, combined with the timing and content of the earlier complaint on 22 December 2018, formed the core of the petitioner’s plea for quashment.
The Court stated: “The crucial question arises for consideration is whether the prosecution case is made out prima facie to allow further proceedings and trial or the same would require quashment, holding otherwise that the entire prosecution is an abuse of process of court.”
In examining the timeline and content of the allegations, the Court recorded: “It is discernible that the de facto complainant is the wife of the younger brother of the petitioner and the allegation of rape, according to him, happened in the year 2017, as per her FIS, recorded in this crime on 26.12.2018.”
It further stated: “In the final report, the allegations again widened and it has been stated that there was repeated rape at the instance of the accused starting from 2016 to 31.03.2018, in deviation from the FIS wherein the allegation of rape during 2017 alone was alleged.”
On the timing of the complaint, the Court observed: “Even though the de facto complainant has a case that she was subjected to repeated rape... she did not file any complaint till 26.12.2018. It is most important that she did not raise such allegations even in the earlier crime registered... on the basis of her statement recorded on 22.12.2018.”
Referring to a Supreme Court decision in Batlanki Keshav Kumar Anurag v. State of Telangana [2025 KHC 6559], the Court stated: “The Apex Court considered non-disclosure of the occurrence in the first FIR and disclosure of the same in the second FIR as fatal to the case of the de facto complainant therein being contradictory.”
Applying the same principle, the Court recorded: “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.”
It also noted: “Although it is pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that the de facto complainant is a deaf and dumb person, the prosecution records in no way suggest so... the only narration is that the de facto complainant is having some hearing loss.”
Concluding the judicial reasoning, the Court stated: “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... are established, warranting trial. On the contrary, the entire proceedings are abuse of process of court.”
The Court found merit in the petition and held that the relief sought was liable to be granted. Consequently, it allowed the petition and quashed both the FIR (Annexure A1) and the charge sheet (Annexure A2) in Crime No. 537/2018 of Kelakom Police Station, which was then pending as S.C. No. 39/2020 before the Additional Sessions Court, Thalassery. The Court further directed the Registry to immediately forward a copy of the order to the trial court.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Shri K.P. Viswambharan, Sri Nabil Khader
For the Respondents: Adv. Sheeba Thomas, Public Prosecutor
Case Title: XXXX v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:39563
Case Number: CRL.M.C. No. 9090 of 2022
Bench: Justice A. Badharudeen
[Read/Download order]
