Kerala High Court: Perception That Women Never File False Rape Cases is Outdated; Quashes Case Over ‘Delayed Complaint and Lack of Evidence’
Kiran Raj
The Kerala High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused of rape on the pretext of marriage, observing that the relationship between the petitioner and the complainant was consensual and that the material on record did not establish the absence of consent. Justice A. Badharudeen, noted that the significant delay in filing the complaint and the complainant’s own affidavit stating she had no grievance reinforced the conclusion that the allegations did not meet the legal threshold required for prosecution under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The petition was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash all further proceedings in S.C. No. 921 of 2019 before the Assistant Sessions Court, Ottappalam. The petitioner contended that the case arose out of a prolonged consensual relationship and that the allegations of rape were legally unsustainable. The prosecution, however, opposed the quashing, asserting that the complainant had filed a complaint only after the petitioner retracted from his promise of marriage.
The case originated from Crime No. 69 of 2019, registered at Koppam Police Station, Palakkad. The complainant alleged that the petitioner had subjected her to sexual intercourse on multiple occasions between May 30, 2014, and April 20, 2019, on the promise of marriage. She stated that the petitioner later withdrew from his promise, leading to the filing of the complaint.
The petitioner’s counsel, Advocate U.K. Devidas, argued that the relationship was consensual and that the complainant had delayed filing the complaint by several years, which raised serious doubts about the veracity of the allegations. He submitted that the complainant and the petitioner had no contact for nearly three years before the complaint was filed. He further pointed out that the complainant had previously lodged a similar complaint in 2016 but had not pursued it after the petitioner reassured her of marriage.
The prosecution, represented by Public Prosecutor Jibu T.S., opposed the quashing, arguing that the allegations in the First Information Statement (FIS) and the final report prima facie disclosed an offence under Section 376 IPC. The prosecution contended that the complainant had initially sought legal recourse through the Women Protection Officer in 2016 but had refrained from proceeding further based on the petitioner’s assurances. When the petitioner allegedly deviated from his promise again, she filed the present complaint, which, according to the prosecution, warranted a trial.
The complainant later submitted an affidavit supporting the quashing of the proceedings, stating that she no longer had any grievance against the petitioner.
The High Court examined the records and found inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements. It observed that while the complainant had initially alleged multiple instances of sexual intercourse over five years, the final report confined the allegations to a single occurrence on May 30, 2014. The court noted that there was no material to suggest that the petitioner had engaged in sexual relations with the complainant without her consent.
The judgment recorded:
"In the instant case, it is true that there was a consensual relationship between the defacto complainant and the petitioner, and as per the final report, an occurrence on 30.05.2014, in continuation of the said relationship, on the promise of marriage has been alleged."
The court also addressed the issue of delay in lodging the complaint. It referred to a Supreme Court decision in Wahid Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2010 (2) SCC 9 : AIR 2010 SC 1], which noted that false allegations of sexual misconduct could not be ruled out in certain cases. The judgment in Wahid Khan was quoted as follows:
"It is also a matter of common law that in Indian society any girl or woman would not make such allegations against a person as she is fully aware of the repercussions flowing therefrom. If she is found to be false, she would be looked at by society with contempt throughout her life. For an unmarried girl, it will be difficult to find a suitable groom. Therefore, unless an offence has really been committed, a girl or a woman would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any such incident had taken place which is likely to reflect on her chastity."
The court noted that while this principle had been applied in the past, it could not be blindly followed in every case. It recorded that there had been instances where false allegations were made to settle personal scores or to exert pressure. Accordingly, it held that the facts of each case must be assessed independently.
The court observed:
"In recent years, this concept seems to be diluted, and in a lesser percentage of the complaints in this line, allegations 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. Therefore, this concept could not be followed blindly without analyzing the truth of the allegations on a case-to-case basis."
The High Court concluded that the complainant had failed to demonstrate that her consent was vitiated by a misconception of fact. It further recorded that the complainant’s own affidavit, wherein she stated that she had no grievance, reinforced the absence of any coercion or deceit.
The court quashed the proceedings, holding that the allegations did not warrant further prosecution. It stated:
"The overt acts alleged against the petitioner herein are to be held as one with consent, and it could not be held that the consent is vitiated by misconception of facts. The lethargy on the part of the defacto complainant would fortify the same. Therefore, the relationship between the defacto complainant and the petitioner was purely consensual in nature. In such view of the matter, no materials are made out in this matter to attract the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC, where the defacto complainant filed an affidavit that she has no grievance in the matter of quashing the proceedings against the petitioner."
Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and all further proceedings in S.C. No. 921 of 2019 before the Assistant Sessions Court, Ottappalam, were quashed.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: U.K. Devidas, Advocate
For the State: Jibu T.S., Public Prosecutor
For the Defacto Complainant: K.V. Bhadra Kumari, Advocate
Case Title: Ajith v. State of Kerala & Another
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:21451
Case Number: Crl.M.C. No. 1124 of 2020
Bench: Justice A. Badharudeen
[Read/Download order]
